'  y. 


THE  DIVINE 


PEDIGREE  OF  MAN 


OR 


THE  TESTIMONY  OF  EVOLUTION  AND  PSYCHOLOGY 
TO  THE  FATHERHOOD  OF  GOD 


BY 


THOMSON  JAY   HUDSON,  LL.D. 

AUTHOR  OF  "THE  LAW  OF  PSYCHIC  PHENOMENA,"  "A  SCIENTIFIC 
DEMONSTRATION  OF  THE  FUTURE  LIFE," 

ETC. 


THIRD    EDITION 


CHICAGO 

A.  C.  McCLURG  &  CO. 

1902 


COPYRIGHT 

BY  A.  C.  MCCLURG  &  Co. 
A.D.  1899 


TO    MY    WIFE 

WITHOUT  WHOSE  LOVING  AID,   COUNSEL,   AND    ENCOURAGE- 
MENT,  THIS   BOOK    COULD   NOT   HAVE 
BEEN    WRITTEN. 


2064724 


PREFACE. 


TN  attempting  to  fulfil  a  task  so  important,  and 
•**  from  a  layman's  point  of  view  so  difficult,  as  that 
of  outlining  a  scientific  basis  of  Christian  theism,  I 
feel  it  to  be  due  to  my  readers  that  I  should  state 
the  causes  which  led  me  to  undertake  it,  and  the 
principles  by  which  I  have  been  guided  in  carrying 
it  to  a  conclusion. 

It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  remark  that  this  book 
was  not  written  for  the  benefit  of  those  who  have 
already  found  in  Holy  Writ  sufficient  evidence  to 
convince  them  of  the  existence  of  an  intelligent 
Great  First  Cause.  Nor  was  it  written  to  convince 
anybody  of  the  soundness  of  the  theory  of  organic 
evolution. 

It  was  written  for  the  benefit  of  that  large  and 
constantly  enlarging  class  of  men  who  are  imbued 
with  the  ultra-scientific  dogma  that  nothing  in  either 
physical  science  or  spiritual  philosophy  is  worthy 
of  belief  if  it  is  not  confirmed  by  a  series  of  well- 
authenticated  facts,  —  a  congeries  of  observable  natu- 
ral phenomena.  This  class  of  course  includes  many 
who  are  not  themselves  scientists,  but  who,  having 
been  unable  to  assimilate  the  logic  of  the  theologian, 
pin  their  faith  upon  the  asseverations  of  those  scien- 


Vill  PREFACE. 

tists  who  claim  to  have  definitely  ascertained  that 
there  is  nothing  in  man  that  cannot  be  dragged  to 
light  by  means  of  the  surgeon's  instruments  or  the 
appliances  of  the  chemist's  laboratory ;  or  upon  the 
reasoning  of  those  logicians  who  claim  to  have  dis- 
covered, by  the  process  of  inductive  inquiry,  that 
there  is  "no  logical  necessity"  for  the  existence  of 
an  intelligent  Deity.  It  was  written  more  especially 
for  the  benefit  of  that  large  and  constantly  multiply- 
ing class  of  intelligent  students  who  have  become 
convinced  of  the  substantial  correctness  of  the  gen- 
eral theory  of  organic  evolution,  many  of  whom 
have,  at  the  same  time,  been  led  to  adopt  the  athe- 
istic conclusions  reached  by  the  great  pioneers  in 
that  science.  Not  that  all,  or  even  the  greater  part, 
of  the  students  of  evolution  have  been  thus  led 
astray ;  for  they  have  not.  On  the  contrary,  I  think 
it  may  be  safely  assumed  that  a  great  majority  of 
educated  persons  of  all  religious  denominations  now 
recognize  evolution  as  God's  method  of  creation. 
They  have,  indeed,  not  been  slow  to  recognize  the 
fact  that  the  teleological  argument  has  been  im- 
mensely fortified  by  the  simple  facts  of  organic  evo- 
lution ;  and  they  have  been  content  to  ignore  the 
atheistic  hypotheses  that  were  at  first  heralded  as 
necessary  elements  of  the  theory  of  evolution  itself. 
Nevertheless,  there  are  many  earnest  seekers  after 
truth  who  are  not  thus  fortified  against  the  specious 
arguments  of  atheism;  some  of  whom  are  prone  to 
accept,  at  its  face  value,  the  gratuitous  assumption 
that  the  atheistic  hypotheses  of  evolutionists  are  as 
well  sustained  by  facts  as  is  the  theory  of  evolu- 
tion itself.  It  was  to  expose  this  error  —  this  fruit- 


PREFACE.  ix 

ful  source  of  manifold  errors  —  and  to  show  that  the 
facts  of  evolution  are  susceptible  of  no  other  than  a 
theistic  interpretation,  that  this  book  was  written. 
In  other  words,  it  was  written  to  show  that  the  facts 
of  organic  and  mental  evolution  point  clearly  and 
unmistakably  to  a  divine  origin  of  mind  and  life  on 
this  earth ;  and  that  the  atheistic  theories  of  agnostic 
evolutionists  are  positively  and  unqualifiedly  desti- 
tute of  facts  to  sustain  them. 

I  have,  therefore,  deemed  it  best  to  frame  my 
argument  upon  purely  scientific  lines,  avoiding  spec- 
ulative philosophy,  and  adhering  strictly  to  the  in- 
ductive method  of  investigation.  To  that  end  I 
have  resisted  the  temptation  to  strengthen  my  argu- 
ment by  quotations  from  Holy  Writ ;  although  the 
Bible  is  full  of  pertinent  passages  which  the  Biblical 
scholar  will  not  fail  to  recognize  and  apply.  I  have 
not  even  touched  upon  the  teleological  argument; 
although  the  teleologist  will  not  fail  to  find  an 
abundance  of  material  for  his  purpose  in  the  facts 
presented. 

As  already  intimated,  the  facts  of  organic  and 
mental  evolution  alone  form  the  basis  of  my  argu- 
ment for  theism,  per  se.  And  when  I  say  that  I 
have  accepted  those  facts  as  they  are  set  forth  by 
the  atheistic  evolutionists,  the  reader  will  understand 
that  I  have  not  selected  my  authorities  from  among 
those  who  might  be  biased  in  favor  of  my  conclu- 
sions. Also,  I  have  accepted  their  arguments  in  favor 
of  the  general  theory  of  organic  evolution ;  and  I 
have  carried  those  arguments  to  their  logical  con- 
clusion. In  so  doing  I  have  shown  that  every  fact 
and  every  argument  that  sustains  the  theory  of 


x  PREFACE. 

evolution  also  proves,  with  stronger  reason,  the  divine 
origin  of  life  and  mind. 

In  pursuing  my  investigations  I  have  adopted  the 
plan  of  going  back  to  the  very  beginning  of  organic 
life  on  this  planet  in  search  of  evidence  to  prove 
my  thesis.  I  have  done  this  on  the  theory  that  the 
nearer  we  approach  to  the  source  of  anything  the 
more  clearly  will  the  nature  of  the  source  be  re- 
vealed in  the  observable  phenomena.  When  I  say 
that  I  have  not  been  disappointed  in  my  quest,  the 
reader  may  understand  that  I  have  found  in  the 
lowest  forms  of  animal  life  indubitable  evidence  of 
the  divine  origin  of  mind  and  life  on  this  earth.  I 
have  also  duly  considered  the  other  salient  facts, 
phases,  and  stages  of  organic  evolution,  from  the 
monera  to  man,  with  the  result  of  finding  that  the 
uniform  trend  is  in  the  same  direction. 

It  is,  however,  one  thing  to  establish  the  general 
doctrine  of  the  divine  origin  of  life  and  mind,  and 
quite  another  to  sustain  the  specific  doctrine  of 
Christian  theism.  The  one  is  amply  proven  by  the 
facts  of  organic  evolution  alone ;  the  other  requires 
the  aid  of  psychology. 

I  have,  therefore,  given  particular  attention  to  the 
latter  science,  not  only  with  special  reference  to  its 
bearing  upon  Christian  theism,  but  with  regard  to  its 
bearing  upon  the  general  subject  of  organic  evolu- 
tion. Those  readers  who  are  familiar  with  my  former 
works  will  readily  understand  that  I  refer  to  the  new 
psychology;  that  is,  to  that  system  of  psychology 
the  fundamental  principles  of  which  were  outlined  in 
"The  Law  of  Psychic  Phenomena."  In  the  present 
work  I  have  simply  carried  to  its  legitimate  conclu- 


PREFACE.  xi 

sion  the  fundamental  hypothesis  set  forth  in  the  work 
above  mentioned.  I  have  been  moved  to  do  so  for 
many  good  and  sufficient  reasons,  among  which  are : 
(i)  The  hypothesis  has  already  been  demonstrated 
to  be  capable  of  correlating  all  psychical  phenomena, 
and  explaining  them  on  scientific  principles.  (2)  It 
harmonizes  with  all  the  facts  of  the  physical  sci- 
ences, including  those  of  organic  and  mental  evolu- 
tion. (3)  It  is  the  only  hypothesis  that  furnishes  a 
complete  answer  to  the  arguments  of  materialism  in 
reference  to  the  question  of  the  existence  of  a  soul 
in  man,  or  of  its  immortality.  (4)  And  finally,  it 
is  the  only  psychological  hypothesis  yet  promul- 
gated that  completely  harmonizes  all  the  facts  of 
science  with  the  essential  doctrines  of  the  Christian 
religion. 

I  have  felt  constrained,  therefore,  to  make  psy- 
chology a  prominent  feature  of  this  book;  and  in  so 
doing  I  have  attempted  to  outline  the  fundamental 
principles  which  may  manifest  the  harmony  that 
exists  between  science  and  religion.  Owing  to  the 
limitations  of  space  in  a  volume  like  this,  I  have  been 
compelled  to  confine  myself  to  the  specific  subject 
of  Christian  theism,  leaving  much  unsaid  that  bears 
upon  the  general  subject  of  Christianity.  The  pur- 
pose of  my  undertaking  will  have  been  accomplished, 
however,  if  I  have  been  able  to  point  out  to  others  a 
method  of  research  which  will  enable  them  to  carry 
forward  the  work  that  is  here  begun. 

I  have  no  apology  to  make  for  the  faults  of  con- 
struction and  style  of  this  book,  other  than  to  say 
that  it  may  appear  that  there  are  undue  repetitions, 
but  it  will  be  found  that  these  are  necessary  to  the 


xii  PREFACE. 

continuity  of  the  thought  or  argument.  Some  of 
them  are,  perhaps,  due  to  the  fact  that  much  of  the 
matter  has  been  taken  from  my  lectures  and  essays 
on  special  branches  of  the  subject  here  treated. 

T.  J.  H. 
WASHINGTON,  D.  C, 

October  10,  1899. 


CONTENTS. 


part  I. 

EVOLUTION  AND  PSYCHOLOGY. 


PACK 

INTRODUCTION 31 

CHAPTER  I. 

AGNOSTICISM. 

Definition  of  "  Agnosticism."  —  Aggressive  Ignorance.  —  Mr.  Her- 
bert Spencer's  "  First  Principles." — His  Charitable  Effort  to 
harmonize  Religion  and  Science.  —  His  "  Great  Unknowable." 
—  His  Numerous  "  Unthinkables."  —  His  Petitio  Principii.  — 
His  Dogmatism. —  His  Statement  of  Fundamental  Proposi- 
tions. —  His  Lame  and  Impotent  Conclusions.  —  His  "  Basis  of 
Reconciliation." — It  is  simply  a  Wholesale  Acknowledgment 
of  Ignorance.  —  It  strikes  at  the  very  Root  of  Christian  Faith.  — 
It  invites  Imbecile  Acquiescence  in  Agnosticism  instead  of  Sci- 
entific Investigation  of  Theism.  —  Mr.  Spencer's  "  First  Princi- 
ples "  Re-examined.  —  A  Legitimate  Conclusion  Sought  for. — 
The  Conditions  Requisite.  —  The  Fundamental  Harmony  of  all 
Religions.  —  No  Real  Conflict  between  Religion  and  Science. — 
It  is  between  Science  and  Man-made  Theological  Dogmas.  — 
True  Science  is  True  Religion's  Best  Friend.  —  True  Science  is 
promotive  of  the  Highest  Conceptions  of,  and  the  most  Exalted 
Reverence  for,  the  God  of  Christian  Faith.  —  Science  is  Pro- 
motive  of  all  Truth.  —  There  are  not  two  Antagonistic  Orders 
of  Truth.  —  Truth  the  only  Basis  of  Reconciliation  between 
Religion  and  Science.  —  Science  furnishes  the  Data  for  the 
Inductive  Study  of  Religion 42 


xiv  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  II. 

PSYCHOLOGY. 

General  Principles  of  Psychology  illustrated  by  Facts  of  Evolu- 
tion. —  "  The  Law  of  Psychic  Phenomena."  —  Its  Hypothesis 
sustained  by  Facts  of  Evolution.  —  A  Summary  of  Fundamental 
Principles.  —  The  Dual  Mind.  —  The  Law  of  Suggestion.  —  Ob- 
jective and  Subjective  Minds  differentiated.  —  Their  Powers 
and  their  Limitations.  —  Suggestion  defined.  —  Hypnotism.  — 
Faculties  of  the  Two  Minds  tabulated. —  An  Analysis  of  the 
Objective  Mind.  —  Its  one  Faculty  Inductive  Reason.  —  Its  De- 
fective Memory.  —  Its  Dependence  upon  Cultivation  and  Re- 
functioning.  —  Its  Faculties  constitute  Pure  Intellect.  —  The 
Mind  of  Reason  and  Judgment.  —  Its  Sphere  of  Activity  purely 
Mundane.  —  It  is  the  Product  of  Evolutionary  Development.  — 
It  perishes  with  the  Body.  —  The  Subjective  Mind.  —  It  is  the 
Primary  Intelligence.  —  It  existed  Millions  of  Years  in  Animal 
Life  before  a  Brain  was  evolved. —  It  is  the  Ultimate  Intelli- 
gence.—  Synchronic  Action  of  the  Two  Minds.  —  Genius. — 
The  Brain  not  the  Organ  of  the  Subjective  Mind.  —  The  Dual 
Mind  normally  controlled  by  the  Objective  Mind.  —  The  Law 
of  Suggestion  its  Instrument.  —  Voluntary  and  Involuntary 
Functions.  —  One  by  the  Objective  Mind,  the  Other  by  the  Sub- 
jective.—  Exceptions  in  Deadly  Peril.  —  The  Subjective  Mind 
is  fitted  especially  for  a  Higher  Plane  of  Existence  .  .  .  .  6a 

CHAPTER  III. 

PSYCHOLOGY  OF  MICRO-ORGANISMS. 

The  General  Theory  of  Evolution.  —  Too  well  established  to  re- 
quire Full  Discussion.  —  The  Pedigree  of  Man  stamped  upon 
his  Physical  Organism.  —  The  Three  Theories  of  Evolution  : 
Materialistic,  Agnostic,  and  Theistic.  —  Darwin,  Romanes,  and 
Haeckel  accepted  as  Authorities  for  Facts,  not  for  Theories. — 
Facts  showing  Duality  of  Mind.  —  The  Brain  not  the  Organ  of 
the  Subjective  Mind. — The  Genesis  of  the  Human  Soul.  —  The 
very  Lowest  Form  of  Animal  Life.  —  The  Moneron.  —  An  "  Or- 
ganism without  Organs  "  endowed  with  a  Mind. —  Quotations 
from  Gates.  Binet,  and  Others.  —  The  "  Psychic  Life  of  Micro- 
Organisms."  —  Their  Habits  and  Mind  Capacity.  —  Reflex  Ac- 
tion discussed.  —  Not  Adequate  to  account  for  Phenomena. — 
All  Vital  Phenomena  Present  in  Non-Differentiated  Cells. — 
Wonderful  Instincts  of  the  Difflugia.  —  Romanes  on  Instinct. 
—  The  Subjective  Mind  of  Man  and  Animals  Identical.  —  It  is 


CONTENTS.  XV 

PAGB 

the  Mind  that  is  inherited  from  Ancestry,  Near  and  Remote. — 
Instincts  increase  with  Intelligence.  —  Primary  and  Secondary 
Instincts.  —  New  Ones  developed  in  Game  Animals.  —  Change 
of  Environment  develops  New  Dangers ;  hence  New  or  Sec- 
ondary Instincts.  —  All  Instincts  Inheritable.  —  Subjective 
Mind  of  Man  the  Sum  of  Ancestral  Instincts.  —  It  antedated 
Brain  by  many  Ages.  —  Brain,  therefore,  not  the  Organ  of  Sub- 
jective Mind 74 

CHAPTER  IV. 

EVOLUTION   AND  THE  SUBJECTIVE  MIND. 

The  Brain  not  the  Organ  of  the  Subjective  Mind.  —  Proven  by  its 
Identity  with  the  Instinctive  Minds  of  Animals.  —  The  Latter 
proven  by  its  Continuity  from  Lowest  Organisms  up  to  Man.  — 
Continuity  proven  by  Comparative  Analysis  of  Faculties  and 
Functions.  —  Instinct  in  Lower  Animals  Identical  with  Intuition 
in  Man.  —  Its  Definition.  —  The  Deductive  Faculty  potentially 
Perfect  in  Subjective  Minds  of  Animals  as  well  as  Men.  —  The 
Emotions  are  Faculties  of  the  Subjective  Minds  of  Men  and 
Animals  alike.  —  They  antedated  the  Brain.  —  Objective  Mind 
is  Emotionless.  —  Induction  and  Concomitant  Memories,  its 
only  Functions  or  Faculties.  —  Telepathy  a  Power  of  the  Sub- 
jective Mind.  —  It  exists  potentially  in  Animals.  —  Telekinesis 
a  Subjective  Power.  —  It  is  the  Power  that  enabled  Jesus  and 
Peter  to  walk  upon  the  Water.  —  It  reappears  in  so-called 
Spirit  Phenomena. — The  Mysterious  Motility  of  the  Polycys- 
tids.  —  Science  cannot  explain  it  under  Physical  Laws.  —  All 
Subjective  Powers  derived  from  Lower  Animals,  beginning 
with  the  Unicellular  Organisms.  —  Further  Proof  by  Experi- 
mental Surgery.  —  Scientific  Search  for  a  Soul  with  a  Scalpel. 

—  Materialistic  Arguments  from  Cerebral  Anatomy  disproved. 

—  They  have  searched  in  the  Wrong  Place  for  the  Soul.  —  The 
Soul  is  Immanent  in  the  Body,  not  Inherent  in  it.  —  Proofs  from 
Voluntary  and    Involuntary  Muscles   and   Functions.  —  Time 
Reaction    Different   in   the   Two    Minds.  —  Phenomena  when 
Death  approaches.  —  Subjective  Mind  grows  Stronger  as  Ob- 
jective Mind  grows  Weaker.  —  Strongest  Manifestations  in  the 
Hour  of  Death,  after  Brain  has  ceased  to  act.  —  Death-Bed 
Scene  when  Governor  Matthews  passed  away. — The  Physi- 
cian's Testimony.  —  The  Wonderful  Power  of  Suggestion  then 
exhibited.  —  Proofs  from  Experimental  Hypnotism.  —  The  Phe- 
nomena of  Amnesia  a  Crucial  Test.  —  Spontaneous  Somnam- 
bulism. —  Proofs  from  Phenomena  of  Dreams 87 


xvi  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  V. 

EVOLUTION  AND  THE   OBJECTIVE  MIND. 

PAGB 

Table  showing  when  Brain  was  evolved.  —  Rapidity  of  Subse- 
quent Evolutionary  Progress.  —  Geometrical  Rate  of  Increase 

—  The  Neptunian  Strata.  —  The  Inconceivable  Length  of  Time 
embraced  in  Organic  History.  —  Psychological  Lessons  taught 
by  the  Table.  —  More  than  One  Half  the  Time  elapsed  before 
a  Brain  appeared  on  this  Earth.  —  Progress  Slow  up  to  that 
Time.  —  Development  more  Rapid  in  the  Next  Epoch,  but  still 
Slow.  —  One  Third   of  the  Time  consumed  in   the  Age   of 
Fishes. — The  Following  Epoch  made  still  more  Rapid  Prog- 
ress, yet  about  One  Ninth  of  the  Time  was  consumed  in  the 
Reptilian  Age.  —  The  Age  of  Mammals  occupied  but  about 
One  Fiftieth  of  the  Whole  Time.  —  The  Age  of  Man  but  One 
Two-Hundredth  Part. — The  Historic  Period  occupied  but  an 
infinitesimally   Small   Part  of  One  Per  Cent  of  the  Whole 
Time.  —  The  Significance  of  these  Facts.  —  The  Real  Func- 
tion of  the  Brain  in  Organic  Life.  —  When  did  Animals  begin 
to  Reason  ?  —  The  Brain  as  a  Factor  in  Evolutionary  Develop- 
ment. —  Its  Inductive  Powers.  —  Its  Ability  to  cope  with  an 
Environment  of  Error  incident  to  Organic  Life  in  the  Forma- 
tive Stage.  —  The  Significance  of  the  Intuitive  Faculty.  —  An- 
other Plane  of  Existence  its  Apparent  Realm  of  Activity.  — 
Some   Fundamental    Axioms.  —  Secondary   Instincts.  —  The 
Power  of  Induction  in  Animals.  —  Increased  Rate  of  Progres- 
sive Development  due  to  that  Faculty 107 

CHAPTER  VI. 

THE  PROCESS  OF  EVOLUTION. 

Objective  Mind  educates  the  Subjective  Mind.  — Hence  the  In- 
stinct of  Animals  is  exactly  proportioned  to  their  Intelligence. 

—  Authorities  cited.— Progressive  Mental  Evolution  brought 
about  by  Development  of  Secondary  Instincts.  —  Romanes  on 
Primary  and  Secondary  Instincts.  — The  Latter  brought  about 
by  "  Natural  Selection."  — The  Absurdity  of  that  Theory  illus- 
trated.—The  General  Theory  of  Natural  Selection  accepted 
with  Reservations,  but  it  is  overloaded  to  an  Absurd  Degree. 

—  Lamarck's  Theory  of "  Appetency  "  also  accepted  with  Quali- 
fications. —  The   Two    Theories    Complementary.  —  Further 
Illustration  of  the  Absurdity  of  ascribing    Primary  Instincts 
to  Natural    Selection.  —  A    Logical    Axiom,    "Never   need- 
lessly multiply  Causes."  —  Primary  and  Secondary  Instincts 


CONTENTS.  xvn 

PAGS 

defined.  —  They  accord  with  the  History  of  Organic  Evolu- 
tion.—  New  Environmental  Conditions  reveal  New  Dangers. 
—  These  are  at  first  intelligently  overcome.  —  Habit  converts 
the  Acts  into  Instincts  which  are  then  inherited.  —  Natural 
Selection  not  an  Original  Cause  of  New  Species.  —  Strictly 
speaking,  it  is  not  a  Law  of  Nature.  —  "  Survival  of  the  Fittest  " 
an  Incident,  not  a  Law.  —  It  is  an  Effect  of  other  Causes. — 
Natural  Selection  not  the  Origin  of  Species.  —  Natural  Selec- 
tion is  the  Theory  of  Chance.  —  It  is  Atheistic  in  its  Last  Anal- 
ysis.—  Lamarck's  Theory.  —  It  is  a  Necessary  Factor  in  any 
Complete  Theory  of  Evolution.  —  Structural  Changes  due  to 
New  Instinctive  Impulses.  —  The  Latter  due  to  Brain  Develop- 
ment.—  Brain  Development  due  to  constantly  Increasing  Com- 
plexities of  Environment.  —  This  is  True  of  Man  as  of  the 
Lower  Animals.  —  Each  Individual  Intelligence  is  the  Sum  of 
all  Ancestral  Instincts  plus  its  Objective  Intelligence  ....  120 

CHAPTER  VII. 

RECAPITULATION. 

Instincts  of  the  Unicellular  Organism.  —  Its  Impellent  Energy. 
— The  Constant  Force  back  of  Evolution.  —  The  l^aw  is  Prog- 
ress.—  Nature's  Novum  Organum.  —  Useful  Instincts  a  Per- 
manent Heritage.  —  Appetency  the  Effective  Agency  of  Pro- 
gressive Development.  —  Every  Mind  Organism  a  Union  of 
Elements  of  Conservation  and  Progress. — The  Immutability 
of  Natural  Law.  —  The  same  Laws  prevail  in  Organic  and 
Mental,  Moral  and  Spiritual  Development.  —  Primary  In- 
stincts the  same  in  Animals  and  Men.  —  The  same  is  true 
of  Secondary  Instincts.  —  Instinct  and  Intuition  Identical.  — 
Emotions  have  the  same  Root  and  Origin.  —  Religious  Wor- 
ship a  Filial  Emotion.  —  Animal  Telepathy.  —  Telekinetic  En- 
ergy.—  Objective  and  Subjective  Memory  differentiated.  —  In 
Men  as  in  Animals  the  Increasing  Complexities  of  Environ- 
ment the  Spur  to  Progressive  Development.  —  In  Men  as  in 
Animals  the  Bulk  of  Intelligence  is  Subjective.  —  The  Ulti- 
mate Ego  is  the  Subjective  Entity. —All  that  is  worth  Pre- 
serving in  the  Future  Life  resides  in  the  Subjective  Mind.  .  .  149 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

THE   TWO   GREAT   GENERIC   INSTINCTS. 

The  Simplicity  of  Nature's  Laws.  —  Evolution  no  Exception.  — 
Two  Instincts  responsible  for  all  the  Phenomena  of  Evolution- 

b 


xvni  CONTENTS. 

PAGB 

ary  Development.  —  Self-Preservation  and  the  Instinct  of  Evo- 
lution :  one  Conservative,  the  other  Progressive  and  Creative.  — 
Natural  Selection  not  a  Law,  but  an  Incident.  —  Evolutionary 
Instinct  a  Constant  Force. —  It  is  also  Altruistic  in  all  its  Im- 
pulses. —  Illustrations  from  Every-Day  Life.  —  Fallacies  of  the 
Old  Philosophies.  —  They  refer  Everything  to  Instinct  of  Self- 
Preservation.  —  With  them  all  Virtue  or  Benevolence  a  Subli- 
mated Form  of  Selfishness.  —  Herbert  Spencer's  Philosophy  of 
Utilitarianism. —  Pure  Selfishness.  —  Altruistic  Acts  the  most 
Pleasurable,  because  in  Harmony  with  the  Strongest  Instinct. 

—  Primordial  Altruism.  —  The  Creative  Energy  Inherent  in  all 
Sentient  Creatures.  —  Human  Character  determined  by  Rela- 
tive Development  of  the  Two  Instincts. —  Altruistic  Impulses 
Predominant  in  the  World.  —  Welfare  of  Future  Generations 
the  Incentive.  —  Schools,  Colleges,  Churches,  and  Eleemosy- 
nary Institutions,  are  Examples.  —  Altruistic  Instinct  Stronger 
than  Instinct  of  Self-Preservation,  otherwise  there  could  be  no 
Progress.  —  The  most  Altruistic  Governments  the  most  Pro- 
gressive, and  the  People  the  most  Patriotic  and  Brave  and 
Warlike  and  Humane.  —  Progress  toward  Universal  Altruism 
Constant  and  Rapid.  —  Atavistic  and  Degenerate  Nations  — 
Their  Decadence.  —  Central  Ideas  of  Evolutionists  and  Chris- 
tian Theism  harmonized.  —  The  Evolutionary  Instinct  the  Im- 
pellent  Energy  of    Physical,   Mental,   Moral,   and   Religious 
Progress 159 

CHAPTER    IX. 
EVOLUTION  OF  THE  TWO   INSTINCTS   IN   THE   INDIVIDUAL. 

Recapitulation.  —  Man's  Environment  of  a  Moral,  Social,  and 
Spiritual  Nature.  —  Same  Process  of  Development  with  Men 
as  with  Animals.  —  Brain  Mind  reasons  out  a  Line  of  Con- 
duct. —  Habit  converts  it  into  a  Permanent  Characteristic. 

—  It    is   then   an  Attribute  of  the  Subjective  Mind,  i.  e.  In- 
stinctive.—  It    is   then   Inheritable. — The  Warfare   between 
Reason  and  Passion  —  Not  for  the  Suppression  of  Passional 
Emotions,  but  for  their  Regulation.  —  Reason  the  Judicial  Tri- 
bunal.—  The  Sum  of  its  Decisions  constitutes  the  Character 
of  the  Individual.  —  As  befits  its  Judicial  Character,  the  Rea- 
soning Mind  is   Emotionless.  —  Nevertheless   it   ministers  to 
Self-interest.  —  It  decides  upon  what  is  Best  for  the  Individ- 
ual. —  The  Brain  the  Novum  Organum  of  Animal  Intelligence. 

—  Suggestion  the  Executive  Agency  of  the  Judicial  Tribunal. 

—  It  is  the  Power  which    invests  Man  with    Dominion  over 
all  Animate  Nature,  including  Himself.  —  Intellectual  Faculties 


CONTENTS.  xix 

PAGE 

of  Subjective  Mind  rarely  appear  above  the  Surface.  —  Ex- 
ceptions in  Genius.  —  Emotions,  however,  constantly  in  Evi- 
dence. —  Synchronism  of  the  Two  Minds.  —  Facts  demonstrat- 
ing Duality  of  Mind.  —  Hypnotism,  Somnambulism,  etc. — 
Objective  Mind  not  controlled  by  Suggestion.  —  Subjective 
Mind  is  so  controlled  except  in  Matters  of  Conscience.  —  Man 
not  handicapped  by  a  Preponderance  of  Evil  in  his  Nature. 

—  The  Strongest  Instinct  impels  to  Progress.  —  Reason  is  on 
the  Side  of   Right.  —  A  Crucial    Question.  —  Why  does   the 
Mortal  Mind  dominate  the  Immortal  Mind  in   this  Life?  — 
The    Question    answered.  —  The    Immortal,   or    Subjective, 
Mind  was  destined  for  a  Higher  Plane  of  Ultimate  Existence. 

—  Meantime  Subjective  Faculties  must  develop  on  this  Plane. 

—  Reason  the  Agency. — Thus  Man  was  made  a  Free  Moral 
Agent 17? 


CHAPTER    X. 
EVOLUTION   OF  THE  TWO    INSTINCTS   IN    THE   STATE. 

The  same  Laws  of  Development  prevail  in  States  as  in  Individ- 
uals.—  All  Aggregations  have  their  Origin  in  Intelligent  Ap- 
preciation of  the  Necessity  for  Mutual  Protection.  —  Reason 
teaches  Mutual  Helpfulness  and  Forbearance. —  Churches, 
Schools,  and  Benevolent  Institutions  follow  in  their  Order. — 
Altruism  is  intelligently  practised.  —  Habit  converts  it  into  an 
Instinctive  Emotion.  —  In  due  Time  Patriotism  becomes  In- 
stinctive. —  It  is  developed  in  Proportion  to  Beneficence  of 
Institutions.  —  Foreign  War  the  Supreme  Test  of  Patriotism. 

—  Capable  of  Indefinite  Expansion.  —  Its  Origin  in  Parental 
Instinct.  —  May  be  expanded  so  as  to  embrace  all  Humanity. 

—  Its  Highest  Manifestations  in  the  most  Progressive  Nations. 

—  In  such  Nations  it  approaches  Universal  Altruism.  —  It  be- 
comes more  than  mere  Love  of  Country.  —  It  becomes  the 
Missionary  Agent  of  Christian  Civilization. — Trade  and  Com- 
merce its  Promoters.  —  The   Incentive  to  all  Effort  and  all 
Progress.  —  It  is  God's  Method  of  inciting  Men  to  Action. — 
Contrast  with  the  "  Gentle  Savage,"  who  neither  works  nor 
fights.  —  Hunger  as  an  Intellectual  Stimulant  alike  with  Ani- 
mals and  Men.  —  Nations  must  be  Prosperous  before  they  can 
be  Altruistic. —  God's  Bounty  from  a  Full  Store.  —  Accumula- 
tions of  Wealth  cannot  properly  be  discouraged,  yet  God  re- 
quires an  Accounting .  191 


xx  CONTENTS. 


CHAFi'ER  XL 

EVOLUTION   OF  CONSCIENCE  AND   RELIGIOUS   PRINCIPLES. 

PAGB 

Normal  Control  of  the  Subjective  Mind.  —  When  Conscience  be- 
comes Instinctive.  —  A  Secondary  Instinct.  —  The  Ultimate 
Instinctive  Emotion  of  the  Human  Soul.  —  Dominates  all 
other  Emotions.  —  It  was  developed  precisely  the  same  as 
were  all  other  Secondary  Instincts.  —  It  was  the  Result  of  the 
Inductive  Reasoning  of  the  Objective  Mind.  —  Facts  of  Ob- 
servation and  Expeiience  resulted  in  the  Maxim,  "  Honesty  is 
the  Best  Policy."  —  This  is  Mr.  Spencer's  Conscience. —  It 
culminates  just  where  Real  Conscience  begins. — It  is  the 
Utilitarian  Conscience.  —  It  is  a  Step  in  the  Process  of  Develop- 
ment, not  the  Process  itself.  —  It  constitutes  a  Suggestion  to 
the  Subjective  Mind.  —  The  Suggestion  is  accepted  and  de- 
ductively carried  to  Higher  Conclusions  —  It  is  thus  reinforced 
by  every  Religious  Principle  or  Emotion.  —  It  is  further  assisted 
by  Intuition. —  As  with  the  Lower  Animals,  so  with  Man. — 
Every  Step  in  Advance  is  accompanied  by  Increased  Powers  of 
Intuitive  Perception  of  Essential  Truth.  — Jesus  of  Nazareth  is 
an  Example.  —  The  Older  Prophets.  —  Conscience,  however, 
may  be  perverted.  —  Hence  the  Inquisition  and  Religious 
Wars ;  hence  Cranks.  —  Perverted  or  unperverted,  it  is  the 
Strongest  Emotion  of  the  Human  Soul.  —  Perverted  Con- 
science the  Exception ;  hence  Progress  toward  the  Higher 
Altruism.  —  It  is  when  Conscience  becomes  Instinctive  that 
the  Subjective  Mind  assumes  the  Ascendancy.  —  The  Sugges- 
tions of  Conscience  overshadow  all  other  Suggestions.  —  At 
the  Threshold  of  the  Moral  and  Religious  Realm  the  Soul 
asserts  its  Normal  Supremacy 203 


part  II. 

PSYCHOLOGY  AND   CHRISTIAN   THEISM. 


CHAPTER   I. 

PRELIMINARY. 

Facts  of  Evolution  to  be  distinguished  from  Theories  of  Evolu- 
tionists.—  Theistic  Argument,  per  sf,  to  be  based  upon  Facts 
presented  by  Antitheistic  Evolutionists,  —  Darwin,  Haeckel, 


CONTENTS.  xxi 

PAGB 

and  Romanes.  —  Their  Arguments  for  Evolution  to  be  utilized 
as  a  Basis  of  Theistic  Conclusions.  —  Exception  to  be  taken 
to  Subsidiary  Hypotheses.  — Distinction  to  be  drawn  between 
Theisms. —  Theism,  per  se,  proven  by  Facts  of  Evolution. — 
Christian  Theism  by  Evolution  and  Psychology.  —  The  World 
interested  alone  in  Christian  Theism.  —  Is  Christian  Civiliza- 
tion founded  on  Truth  or  Error?  —  The  New  Psychology  a 
Necessary  Factor.  —  The  Old  Psychologies  Inadequate  to 
a  Solution  of  the  Problem 219 

CHAPTER  II. 

THE  GREAT  ATHEISTIC  PETITIO  PRINCIPII. 

Logical  Cobwebs  to  be  cleared  away.  —  The  Real  Question :  Is 
there  a  Personal  Deity?  —  Anthropomorphism  not  Chargeable 
under  New  Psychology.  —  The  Service  rendered  by  Evolution- 
ists. —  Refuted  Doctrine  of  Special  Creations,  and  then  said 
in  their  Hearts,  "There  is  no  God."  —  Mr.  Darwin's  Great 
Labor  directed  toward  Atheism.  —  Entitled  to  Credit  for  prov- 
ing Evolution.  —  Natural  Selection  as  the  Origin  of  Species 
not  sustained  by  Facts.  —  Artificial  Selection  produces  New 
Morphological  Species,  not  Physiological.  —  Examples.  —  Hux- 
ley takes  this  View.  —  Proof  of  Natural  Selection  lacking.  — 
The  Theory  clung  to  by  Atheism,  because  it  disguises  the 
Theory  that  Physical  Organism  antedates  Intelligence.  —  This 
is  the  Stronghold  of  Atheism.  —  It  is  assumed  without  Proof, 
which  is  begging  the  Question.  —  Theory  of  Spontaneous  Gen- 
eration without  One  Fact  to  support  it.  —  All  Known  Facts 
against  it.  —  Haeckel  assumes  it  confessedly  without  Facts.  — 
Begs  the  Question.  —  Tyndall's  Experiments  failed  to  produce 
Organic  Life  from  Inorganic  Matter. —  The  Crucial  Point  at 
the  Beginning  of  Organic  Life.  —  Natural  Selection  the  The- 
ory of  Chance.  —  Lamarck's  Theory  of  Appetency.  —  Darwin's 
Contempt  for  Lamarck  because  his  Theory  presupposed  Intel- 
ligence as  the  Cause  of  Organism.  —  "It  implies  Necessary 
Progression."  —  "A  Wretched  Book."  —  Darwin's  Private  Re- 
ligious Views.  —  Lamarck's  Theory  complementary  to  Dar- 
win's. —  Huxley's  Latest  Views.  —  They  indorse  Lamarck's 
Theory.  —  Haeckel  vs.  Haeckel.  —  The  Scientist  vs.  the  Athe- 
ist.—  The  Moneron  demonstrates  Mind  as  Antecedent  to  Physi- 
cal Organism.  —  The  Monera  are  Structureless,  and  yet  they 
are  endowed  with  Mind  and  Life.  —  A  Wonderful  Intelli- 
gence.—  His  Theory  itself  a  Case  of  "Spontaneous  Genera- 
tion."—  The  Moneron  as  a  Symbol  and  an  Example. — 
Symbolizes  the  Whole  Process  of  Evolution.  —  An  Example 
of  Creative  Power,  of  Control  of  Mind  over  Matter,  of  the 


xxil  CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

Immanence  of  the  Soul  in  the  Body.  —  Its  Independence  of 
Organism,  of  a  Law  of  Infinite  Reproduction.  —  Haeckel's 
Assumption  begs  the  Question  at  Issue.  —  It  is  in  Defiance  of 
all  Facts  and  Recognized  Principles.  —  Atheism  based  upon 
Pure  Assumption.  —  The  Theories  of  Darwin  and  his  Follow- 
ers are  Atheistic.  —  Their  Facts  are  Theistic 225 

CHAPTER  III. 

THE   MIND    OF   MAN'S    EARLIEST    EARTHLY   ANCESTOR. 

The  Doctrine  of  Heredity.  —  All  that  is  inherent  in  Man  is  what 
he  inherited  from  his  Ancestry,  Near  and  Remote.  —  The  Po- 
tentials of  Manhood,  therefore,  resided  in  the  Moneron.  — 
Propositions  reduced  to  Syllogistic  Form.  —  The  Two  Primor- 
dial Instincts  as  shown  in  the  Moneron.  —  The  Prepotent 
Agency  of  Physical  Development  and  of  Human  Progress. — 
A  Complete  Law  of  Evolution  thus  exemplified  in  the  Monera. 

—  Thus  Progress  toward  Highest  Development  follows  Lines 
of  Least  Resistance.  —  Only  Good  implanted  in  Man's  Earliest 
Earthly  Ancestor.  —  What   is   Instinct?  —  Atheistic   Theories 
considered.  —  Herbert    Spencer's   Reflex    Action.  —  Romanes 
vs.  Spencer.  —  Facts  and  not  Phrases  to  be  considered.  —  Analy- 
sis of  the  Mental  Faculties  of  the  Moneron.  —  Based  on  Haeck- 
el's  Statements.  —  Sensation,  Movement,  Nutrition,  Reproduc- 
tion, Regeneration,  Intelligence.  —  The  Promise  and  Potency 
of  a  Human  Soul.  —  That  Intelligence  comprises  a  Knowledge 
of  the   Primary   Laws  of  Organic  Life.  —  Reflex  Action  pre- 
supposes   Subjective    Intelligence.  —  It   is   a    Recognition  of 
Danger  coupled  with  an  Effort  to  avoid  it.  —  It  never  makes  a 
Mistake.  —  The   Simplest   Manifestation  of   Instinct  of  Self- 
Preservation. — The    Old    Psychology    at    Fault. —  It    knew 
Nothing  of  Subjective  Mind.  —  All  its  Data  from  the  Objec- 
tive Mind. —  Phenomena  due  to  Sensation  being  prompted  by 
Intelligence,  it  follows  that  the  same  is  true  of  the  Other  Facul- 

x  ties.  —  Mind  of  the  Moneron  differs  in  no  Essential  from  Sub- 
jective Mind  of  Man,  except  in  Degree.  —  The  same  Terms 
define  its  Powers  and  Attributes.  —  Nor  can  Faculties  of  the 
Moneron  be  adequately  described  except  in  Terms  that  define 
Omniscience 258 

CHAPTER  IV. 

OTHER  GODLIKE  POTENTIALS  IN  THE  MIND  OF  THE  MONERON. 

Endowed  with  Creative  Powers.  —  The  Real  "Origin  of  Species." 

—  Haeckel's  Admissions.  —  Its  Development  from  the  Undif- 
ferentiated  Moneron  to  the  Differentiated  Amceba.  —  The  En- 


CONTENTS.  xxni 

PACK 

ergy  "  from  within."  —  The  Greatest  Single  Step  in  the  Process 
of  Evolution.  —  The  Key  to  the  Whole  Mystery.  —  The  Crea- 
tive Power  of  Mind.  —  We  must  infer  that  all  other  Changes 
in  Organism  were  due  to  the  same  Creative  Energy.  —  It  is 
the  Constant  Force  behind  all  Progressive  Development.  — 
Huxley  on  the  Innate  Creative  Powers  of  Animal  Intelligence. 

—  The  Growth  and  Development  of  the  Salamandrine  Egg.  — 
The  Power  of  the  Water  Newt  to  reproduce  Lost  Limbs.  — 
These  Powers  Typical  Examples  of  Creative  Energy.  — They 
are  Nature's  Divine  Revelations.  —  This  Creative  Power  by 
Extension  to  Infinity  would  mean  Omnipotence.  —  Its  Knowl- 
edge of  the  Essential  Laws  of  its  Being  by  Extension  would 
mean   Omniscience.  —  Its  Power  is  that  of  Mind  over  Matter. 

—  It  is,  then,  essentially  Godlike,  differing  only  in  Degree.  — 
The   Tendency  of  Science  to  name  Things  in  the  Absence  of 
an  Explanation.  —  The  Popular  Belief  that  Names  do  explain 
Things.  —  Illustrative  Examples.  —  The  Theory  of  the  Uncon- 
scious. —  Hence  Learned  Talk  of  the  Unconscious  Acts  of  the 
Lower  Animals.  —  All  the  Facts  of  Experience  show  that  the 
Subjective  Mind  of  Man  is  most  intensely  Conscious.  —  We 
have  a  Right  to  infer  that  the  same  is  True  of  Animals.  —  The 
same  Laws  prevail. —  Subjective  "Unconsciousness,"  there- 
fore, is  Objective  Ignorance  of  the  States  of  Subjective  Con- 
sciousness.—  The  Same  is  True  of  our  Knowledge  of  Con- 
sciousness of  Lower  Animals.  —  Instinctive  Acts  are  therefore 
presumably  Conscious  Acts.  —  The  Consciousness  of  a  Godlike 
Mind.  —  Whence  came  it  ?  —  There  are  but  Two  Hypotheses. 

—  One  is  Spontaneous  Generation  ;  the  Other  is  Divine  Inheri- 
tance. —  One  is  Atheism ;  the  Other  is  Theism.  —  One  is  with- 
out a  Fact  to  support  it, —  it  rests  upon  Pure  Assumption, — 
a  Petitio  Principii,  Gross  and  Palpable  ;  the  Other  will  be  dis- 
cussed in  the  Ensuing  Chapters 274 

CHAPTER  V. 

NATURAL   LAW   VS.    "SUPERNATURAL   MIRACLE." 

One  of  the  Atheistic  Strongholds.  —  Words  and  Phrases  sup- 
posed to  be  Contumelious.  —  A  Method  of  Compelling  the 
Acceptance  of  "  Scientific "  Absurdities.  —  Potential  Scare- 
Words,  e.g.  Haeckel's  "Supernatural  Miracle." — His  Esti- 
mate of  Deific  Limitations.  —  The  Question  raised.  —  Is  a 
Miracle  Necessary  to  escape  Spontaneous  Generation?  — 
Miracle  defined.  —  Facts  of  Evolution  exclude  Miracle.  — 
Everything  happens  in  Regular  Order,  therefore  not  Miracu- 
lous.—  To  suppose  Miracle  to  be  Necessary  is  to  prescribe 


xxiv  CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

Limitations  to  Divine  Intelligence.  —  The  Established  Order 
of  Nature  the  Antithesis  of  Miracle.  —  Beginning  of  Life 
necessarily  in  the  Established  Order.  —  Generation  of  Mind 
from  Inorganic  Matter  would  require  a  Miracle.  —  We  must 
assume  Natural  Law  to  prevail 289 

CHAPTER  VI. 

THE  ARGUMENT   FROM   HEREDITY. 

Facts  drawn  from  the  History  of  Organic  Evolution.  — The  Doc- 
trine of  Heredity. —  Its  Biological  Definition.  —  The  Author- 
ity of  Darwin,  Huxley,  and  Haeckel.  —  The  Common  Ground 
upon  which  Atheism  and  Theism  can  stand.  —  The  Acknowl- 
edged Facts  of  Heredity.  —  The  Necessary  Presumptions.  — 
Something  to  inherit.  —  Something  from  which  to  inherit. — 
The  Character  of  the  Inheritance.  —  Must  exist  actually  or 
potentially  in  the  Ancestor.  —  May  differ  in  Degree,  but  not  in 
Kind. —  Man  inherits  from  his  Lower  Ancestry  back  to  the 
Moneron.  —  Whence  the  Intelligence  of  the  Moneron  ?  —  The 
Law  of  Heredity  presupposes  an  Ancestor. —  Atheism  says, 
"  This  is  an  Exception  to  the  General  Law."  —  Theism  replies 
that  Laws  of  Nature  do  not  admit  of  Exceptions.  —  The  Issue 
systematically  examined. — The  Necessity  of  going  back  to  the 
Beginning  of  Organic  Life.  —  (i)  The  Issue:  Spontaneous 
Generation  or  Inheritance. —  (2)  The  Facts  agreed  upon: 
(a)  Potentials  of  Manhood  in  the  Moneron  —  (b)  Faculties 
acquired  only  by  Inheritance  —  (c)  Antecedent  Intelligence 
presupposed  —  (d)  Failure  of  Experimental  Attempts  to  gen- 
erate Life  from  Inorganic  Matter — (e)  Monera  Destitute  of 
Structural  Organism  —  (f)  Nevertheless  endowed  with  a  Mind 

—  (g)  Developed  into  a  Structural  Organism  —  (h)  Moneron's 
Mind  antedated  its  Physical  Organism. — 3.  What  Facts  sup- 
port Theory  of   Spontaneous    Generation? — Confessedly  all 
Facts   are  against   it. —  Experimental    Failures.  —  Quality  of 
Evidence  considered.  —  Negative   Evidence   not  the   Best.  — 
But  a  Hypothesis  without  one  Fact  to  support  it  is  a  Logical 
Absurdity. —  Hypothesis   Valid   only  when   sustained   by   all 
Facts.  —  Otherwise  no  Constancy  in  Nature. — Atheistic  Hy- 
pothesis   Unique.  —  Has    no   Parallel    in    Bald,   Unreasoning 
Assumption.  —  Reasons  for  Atheist's  Attitude.  —  Doctrine  of 
Evolution  disproved   Theory  of   Special   Creations.  —  Hence 
he  "said  in  his  Heart,  There  is  no  God." — Hence  Necessity 
for  inventing  a  Hypothesis.  —  Paralleled  only  by  that  of  Topsy. 

—  Haeckel's  Statement  of  the  Issue.  —  Spontaneous  Genera- 
tion or  "  Supernatural  Miracle."  —  Equivalent  to  Spontaneous 


CONTENTS.  xxv 

PAGE 

Generation  or  Divine  Agency. — The  Latter  the  Real  Issue. — 
No  Other  Possible.  —  One  is  True  and  the  Other  False. — 
Logical  Conditions  considered.  —  Facts  in  Support  of  Heredi- 
tary Hypothesis  next  in  Order 295 

CHAPTER  VII. 

THE   ARGUMENT    FROM    HEREDITY  (CONTINUED). 

The  Character  of  the  Heritage.  —  If  essentially  Divine,  it  is  Pre- 
sumptive Evidence  of  Divine  Origin.  — If  no  other  Source  is 
Possible,  the  Evidence  is  Conclusive.  —  No  other  Possible 
Source  has  been  shown.  —  Examination  of  Facts  showing 
Divine  Attributes  in  the  Moneron.  —  They  are  the  Element- 
ary Facts  of  Evolution. —  They  demonstrate  Intuitive  Knowl- 
edge of  Laws  of  its  Being.  —  Explanations  on  other  Grounds 
Pure  Assumptions.  —  Begging  the  Question.  —  Knowledge 
measured  by  Actions.  —  Adaptation  of  Means  to  Ends  the 
Test  of  Intelligence. —  Attributes  summed  up.  —  Intuition. — 
Antecedent  to  Organism.  —  Has  Power  over  Unorganized 
Matter.  —  Creative  Power. — Creates  New  Species. — Trans- 
mits by  Inheritance. —  Dominant  Instinct  Creative. — Domi- 
nant Emotion  Altruistic. —  Potentially  Divine. —  All  Essential 
Attributes  of  the  God  of  Christian  Faith. —  Differing  only 
in  Degree.  —  Knowledge,  Power,  Love.  —  Whence  came  they? 

—  The  Question  for    Inductive  Science. —  Science  knows  of 
but    One    Way   of    acquiring    Faculties,  —  Inheritance.  —  By 
Analysis  of  Faculties  it  learns   the  Character  of  Ancestry, 
and  can  predict  Character  of  Posterity.  —  No  Exceptions"  to 
Nature's  Laws.  —  Divine  Faculties  necessarily  a  Divine  Heri- 
tage.—  Atheistic    Objections.  —  "Supernatural    Miracle."  — 
Objection    Invalid.  —  Miracle   cannot   be   posited   on    Intelli- 
gence. —  Natural  Law  always  presumed.  —  Electric  Phenomena 
originated  in  Cosmic  Electrical  Energy  — Mind  originated  in 
Cosmic  Mind  Energy.  —  Atheistic  Theory  a  Recrudescence 
of  Fetichism.  —  Mind  in  Inanimate  Matter,  e.  g.  —  No  Disre- 
spect to  Fetich  Worshipper.  —  Lodestone  does  not  generate 
Magnetism.  —  Protoplasm   does  not   generate   Mind.  —  Each 
Substance  is  a  Medium  of  Manifestation  of  a  Cosmic  Energy. 

—  Can  One  Mind  be  produced  from  Another  ? —  Reproduction 
an  Example.  —  Reproduction  by  Fission  Demonstrative.  —  The 
Monera  indefinitely  Divisible.  —  Each  Particle  a  Distinct  Mind 
Organism.  —  Reproduction  a  Mental  Act.  —  Inferences  as  to 
Divine  Methods.  —  The  Mind  of  each  Sentient  Creature  a  Part 
of  the  Divine  Mind.  —  Logical  Rules  of  Investigation.  —  The 
Law  of  Parsimony.  —  All  violated  by  Atheism.  —  Truth  does 


xxvi  CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

not  necessitate  a  Violation  of  Logical  Principles.  —  All  Es- 
sential Truth  may  be  known  by  Inductive  Investigation.  — 
Application  of  Rules.  —  Logical  Axioms :  (i)  No  Effect  with- 
out a  Cause;  (2)  Cause  always  Commensurable  with  Effect. 

—  They    are    "Universal    Postulates." — We   may   therefore 
always  know  the  Nature  of  a  Cause  by  observing  its  Effects. 

—  Nature  never  erects  False  Signals.  —  Under  this  Law  we 
know  that  the  Cause  of  Mind  is  Mind.  —  Under  the  Law  of 
Heredity  we  know  its  Attributes,  —  that  it  is  an  Organized, 
Conscious  Intelligence,  a  Personality,  a  Creative  Intelligence, 
a  Constant  Energy,  Omniscient,  Omnipotent,  Altruistic. —  No 
other  Hypothesis  accounts  for  All  the  Facts.  —  If  Nature  is 
Constant,  we  know  that  God  is  our  Father 310 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

HUMAN   ONTOGENY  AND  PHYLOGENY. 

The  Strongest  Argument  in  Favor  of  the  Evolutionary  Hypothe- 
sis.—  The  Analogical  Argument  from  Ontogeny  to  Phylogeny. 

—  Haeckel's  Great  Work  Demonstrative  of  its  Validity.  —  But 
he  was  in  Search  of  Atheistic  Arguments.  —  He  found  None. 

—  On  the  Contrary,  he  found    Proofs  of  Theism.  —  General 
Remarks  in  re  the  Analogical  Argument.  —  Invalid  unless  the 
Phenomena  and  Laws  are  the  Same.  — The  Present  Argument 
Valid.  —  Ontogeny  a  Repetition   of   Phylogeny.  —  Phylogeny 
the  Cause  of  Ontogeny  under  the    Law  of   Heredity.  —  The 
Primordial  Germ  and  the  Germinal  Cell  Identical  in  Character 
and  Attributes. —  The  Importance  of  this  Fact. —  The  Later 
Forms  of  the   Human   Embryo  correspond  with  the  Salient 
Steps  in  Phylogeny.  —  The  Law  of  Heredity  the  Cause  of  the 
Correspondence.  —  Evidence  Comparable  to  that  of  Successive 
Geological  Strata.  —  Man  recognizes  his  Earliest  Earthly  An- 
cestor by  its  Resemblance  to  the  Form  which  marked  his  Earli- 
est Embryotic  Form.  —  Haeckel's  "  Fundamental   Law  of  Or- 
ganic Evolution  "  formulated.  —  The  Debt  that  Science  owes 
to  Haeckel.  —  The  Pains  he  has  taken  to  develop  Facts  that 
disprove  his  Anti-Theistic  Beliefs.  —  His  Method  of  accounting 
for  his  Facts  not  so  Ingenuous,  or  he  has  failed  to  see  their 
Trend.  —  His  Invitation  to  Philosophers. —  His  Promised  Re- 
wards to  those  who  will  explain  Ontogeny  phylogenetically.  — 
His  own  Conclusions  arrived  at  only  by  ignoring  his  Facts.  — 
Next  Chapter  will  explain  Ontogenetic  Facts  phylogenetically, 
and  carry  the  Analogical  Argument  to  its  Legitimate  Conclusion.  334 


CONTENTS.  xxvn 


CHAPTER   IX. 

THE  THEISTIC  ARGUMENT  FROM   ONTOGENY  AND  PHYLOGENY. 

PAGE 

Professor  Haeckel's  Premises  accepted  for  more  than  his  Esti- 
mated Valuation.  —  No  Dispute  as  to  Facts.  —  The  Matter  in 
Dispute  relates  to  Deductions  from  Laws  agreed  upon.  —  The 
Invisible  World  not  outside  the  Domain  of  Law.  —  All  Natu- 
ral Forces  Invisible.  —  Deductions  from  Known  Laws  always 
Legitimate.  —  Facts  agreed  upon  by  Atheists  and  Theists : 
I.  Ontogeny  repeats  Phylogeny.  —  2.  Phylogeny  causes  Onto- 
geny.—  3.  Heredity  the  Controlling  Law.  —  4.  Heredity  con- 
trols Ontogeny  and  Phylogeny.  —  5.  Potentialities  of  Manhood 
reside  in  the  Germinal  Cell  of  Man.  —  6.  Also  in  the  Pri- 
mordial Germ. —  It  follows  that  (i)  the  Laws  are  the  same; 
(2)  that  Pre-existent  Conditions  were  the  same;  (3)  that 
Causes  were  Identical  in  Kind.  —  The  Ontogenetic  and  Phylo- 
genetic  Series  begin  alike  with  the  Moneron  and  end  in  Man. 

—  Each  has  Identical  Powers  and  Mental  Attributes.  —  Condi- 
tions and  Causes  being  the  same,  if  we  find  the  Cause  for  one 
Condition   we  can  safely  infer  the   other.  —  We   know  why 
Potentials  of  Manhood  reside  in  the  Germinal  Cell  of  Man.  — 
Because  they  were  inherited  from  an  Antecedent  Mind,  —  that 
of   the  Parent.  —  Corollary:    The   Potentialities  of   Manhood 
reside  in  the  Moneron  because  they  were  inherited  from  an 
Antecedent  Mind,  —  that  of  the  Infinite  Parent.  —  No  other 
Conclusion  logically  Legitimate.  —  A  Denial  is  a  Repudiation 
of  all  Known  Laws  relating  to  it,  especially  that  of  Heredity. 

—  If  Nature  is  constant,  the  Moneron   inherited   its  Divine 
Potentialities  from  the  Divine  Mind.  —  This  is  the  Analogical 
Argument  carried  to  its  Legitimate  Conclusion.  —  The  Anal- 
ogy is  Incomplete  without  it,  and  therefore  Invalid.  —  What 
does  Atheism  offer  in  Refutation?  —  Spontaneous  Generation. 

—  A  Theory  without  a  Fact  to  support  it.  —  An   Abandon- 
ment of  Induction.  —  A   Guess  and   a  Hope  that  Somebody 
may  sometime  discover  (or  manufacture)  a  Fact  to  sustain  the 
Atheist's  Guesses. — Darwin's  Guess  and  Huxley's   Hope. — 
Haeckel's  Gue.-s  without  Hope.  —  Ward's  Guess  and  Hope. — 
Specimens  of  Atheistic  "  Induction." —  Nevertheless  the  World 
owes  them  much  ;  notwithstanding  a  Relapse  toward  Fetich- 
ism,  they  builded  better  than  they  knew. — Their  Facts  prove 
the   Theory  of  Evolution,  but  they  also  prove  the  Existence 

of  the  God  of  Christian  Faith 349 


xxvi  u  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  X. 

IN  THE   IMAGE   OF  GOD. 

PAGE 

The  True  Basis  of  Reconciliation  of  Religion  and  Science.  — 
Consists  in  a  Truthful  Interpretation  of  the  Facts  of  Nature.  — 
There  are  not  Two  Orders  of  Truth,  one  Scientific  and  the 
other  Religious.  —  The  Old  Prophet's  Declaration.  —  Man  was 
made  in  the  Image  of  God.  —  The  Common  Anthropomorphic 
Interpretation.  —  Due  to  a  Defective  Psychology.  —  God  was 
conceived  as  an  Infinite  Reasoner.  —  Otherwise  an  Infinite  In- 
quirer after  Facts  and  a  Guesser  at  Conclusions.  — The  Divine 
Likeness  in  the  Faculties  of  the  Subjective  Mind.  —  Even  its 
Limitations  Suggestive  of  Divine  Attributes.  —  The  Signifi- 
cance of  its  Limitations. —  Its  Faculties  tabulated.  —  Intuition 
an  essentially  Divine  Attribute. — Its  Importance  in  the  Or- 
ganic World.  — Deductive  Reasoning  the  Concomitant  of  Intui- 
tion.—  They,  with  Memory,  constitute  the  Intellectual  Facul- 
ties of  the  Subjective  Mind. —  Extended  by  Infinity,  they  would 
be  Omniscience.  —  Inconceivable  Rapidity  of  Subjective  Men- 
tation. —  Prodigious  Feats  of  Memory,  —  Illustrative  Cases.  — 
Dynamic  Energy  of  the  Subjective  Mind. —  Telekinesis.  —  Ex- 
tended to  Infinity,  it  would  be  Omnipotence.  —  New  Testament 
Examples  of  Dynamic  Force  of  the  Soul.  — Telepathy.  —  Its 
Significance.  —  Distance  no  Obstacle  —  Infinite  Extension 
would  constitute  Omnipresence.  —  A  Channel  of  Communica- 
tion between  God  and  Man.  —  Prayer  and  Inspiration.  —  The 
Natural  Emotions.  —  Their  Altruistic  Character.  —  Infinite  Ex- 
tension would  mean  Infinite  and  Universal  Love.  —  Thus  the 
Faculties  of  the  Soul,  infinitely  extended,  give  us  an  Omni- 
scient, Omnipotent,  Omnipresent  God  of  Infinite  and  Universal 
Love. —  The  Highest  Possible  Conception  of  Deity.  —  The 
Conception  not  Anthropomorphic.  —  It  neither  limits  nor  meas- 
ures God.  —  His  Qualities  alone  revealed.  —  But  it  shows  that 
Man  was  made  in  the  Image  of  God.  —  This  much  Man  may 
know  of  God.  —  Not  that  it  reveals  Human  Attributes  in  God, 
but  Divine  Attributes  in  Man.  —  Man's  Place  in  Nature.  —  His 
Obligations  and  Duties 361 


EVOLUTION   AND   PSYCHOLOGY. 


THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE  OF  MAN. 


I. 

EVOLUTION   AND   PSYCHOLOGY. 


INTRODUCTION. 

IT  is  the  boast  of  science  that  its  only  quest  is 
truth,  and  that  in  its  pursuit  the  inductive 
method  of  inquiry  is  never  departed  from.  So  per- 
sistently have  scientists  iterated  and  reiterated  this 
declaration,  and  so  abundant  are  the  evidences  that 
they  have  in  the  main  adhered  to  it,  that  the  uncriti- 
cal world  is  wont  to  accept  as  truth  whatever  bears 
the  scientific  label,  and  as  valid  whatever  conclusions 
are  alleged  to  have  been  reached  by  the  process  of 
induction.  Nor  can  it  be  denied  that  the  constantly 
multiplying  scientific  appliances  of  modern  civiliza- 
tion afford  indubitable  evidences  of  the  value,  not 
to  say  the  infallibility,  of  the  Baconian  methods  of 
research  in  the  realm  of  physical  science.  The  mar- 
vellous success  of  the  inductive  method  of  searching 
for  truth  in  the  material  world  not  unnaturally  gave 
rise  to  the  broad  declaration,  by  the  materialistic 
scientists,  that  no  theory  of  causation,  spiritual  or 
physical,  is  worthy  of  serious  consideration  unless 


32  THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

it  be  sustained  by  a  series  of  well-authenticate.d  facts 
that  can  bear  no  other  possible  interpretation.  This 
was  the  prevailing  idea  among  skeptical  scientists 
and  their  followers  when  Darwin  propounded  the 
theory  that  the  organic  world  owed  its  existence  to 
progressive  development  and  inheritance  from  the 
lower  forms  of  animal  life. 

With  what  alacrity  this  theory  was  accepted  by 
the  skeptical  scientists,  and  how  thoroughly  it  was 
reprobated  by  the  theological  world,  are  matters  of 
history.  The  reasons  for  the  acceptance  on  the  one 
hand  and  the  rejection  on  the  other  were,  of  course, 
identical.  The  theory,  if  true,  disproved  the  then 
prevailing  theological  dogma  of  special,  miraculous 
creations  of  species  in  the  organic  world. 

It  was  here  that  the  first  great,  fundamental  error 
was  committed  by  both  sides.  On  the  part  of  the 
atheistic  scientists  it  consisted  in  the  assumption 
that,  by  disproving  the  doctrine  of  special  creations, 
they  had  eliminated  God  from  the  universe;  or,  to 
use  the  language  of  Romanes,  they  had  thereby  ob- 
viated the  "  logical  necessity  for  a  God."  On  the 
part  of  the  theologians  the  mistake  consisted  in 
accepting  the  conclusion  as  a  valid  deduction  from 
the  premise;  thus  rendering  it  logically  necessary 
for  them  to  denounce  the  doctrine  of  evolution 
itself.  For  the  time  being  no  one  seemed  to  regard 
any  middle  ground  as  logically  possible;  and  the 
breach  between  science  and  religion  seemed  wider 
than  ever. 

After  a  few  years  had  elapsed,  however,  the  most 
liberal-minded,  intelligent,  and  unprejudiced  of  both 
sides  began  to  realize  that  it  did  not  necessarily 


rNTRODUCTfON.  33 

follow  that,  if  the  theory  of  evolution  was  the  true 
explanation  of  organic  life,  it  obviated  the  logical 
necessity  for  an  intelligent  Great  First  Cause  of  all 
things.  On  the  contrary,  as  the  true  theory  of 
organic  evolution  came  to  be  better  understood  by 
its  early  enemies,  and  their  first  crude  and  ridiculous 
conceptions  of  it  were  dissipated  by  a  knowledge  of 
its  real  scope  and  significance,  it  became  more  and 
more  evident  that  evolution  is  simply  God's  method 
of  creation.  With  this  clearer  understanding  of  the 
subject  came  higher  conceptions  of  the  true  nature 
and  character  of  the  Divine  Mind  than  had  ever 
before  prevailed.  God  was  seen  to  be  a  being  of 
infinite  intelligence  and  power,  and  capable  of  creat- 
ing and  governing  this  universe  by  means  of  his 
own  immutable  laws.  In  a  word,  the  teleological 
argument,  or  the  argument  from  evidences  of  intel- 
ligent design,  was  strongly  reinforced  by  the  facts 
of  organic  evolution.  In  point  of  fact,  it  was  found 
that  the  teleological  evidences  afforded  by  evolu- 
tion far  outweigh  in  real  significance  all  that  were 
ever  before  adduced. 

This,  however,  is  by  no  means  the  most  important 
part  of  the  evidences  for  theism  to  be  found  in  the 
facts  of  organic  evolution.  It  is,  in  fact,  no  part  of 
the  object  of  this  volume  to  press  the  teleological 
argument;  although  abundant  facts  will  be  devel- 
oped suggestive  of  teleological  conclusions,  which 
the  intelligent  reader  will  draw  for  himself.  My 
object  is  to  show  that  the  facts  of  organic  evolution 
afford  abundant  material  from  which  to  study  the 
subject  of  theism  by  the  pure  process  of  induction, 
leaving  nothing  to  the  imagination,  nothing  to 

3 


34  THE   DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

speculative  philosophy.  That  is  to  say,  I  shall 
undertake  to  show  that  the  salient  facts  of  evolu- 
tion, as  developed  by  the  researches  of  anti-theistic 
scientists,  are  susceptible  of  no  other  than  a  theistic 
interpretation,  without  an  utter  abandonment  and 
repudiation  of  every  principle  of  logical,  scientific 
inductive  investigation.  To  that  end  I  shall  under- 
take to  prove  that  they  have  avoided  a  theistic  in- 
terpretation of  their  own  facts,  only  by  abandoning, 
at  all  the  crucial  points  in  their  inquiry,  the  plain- 
est principles  of  induction,  and  soaring  away  into 
the  cloudy  realms  of  speculative  philosophy  with- 
out one  fact,  or  semblance  of  a  fact,  to  sustain  their 
hypotheses. 

I  shall  show,  for  instance,  that  Mr.  Darwin's 
great  principle  of  "  natural  selection,"  when  consid- 
ered as  "  the  origin  of  species,"  is,  in  that  sense, 
without  a  fact  to  sustain  it.  Natural  selection,  or 
survival  of  the  fittest,  is  a  potent  factor  in  the 
process  of  organic  development,  and  no  theory  of 
evolution  could  be  complete  without  it.  But  it  is 
preservative  of  species,  —  not  creative.  I  shall  sus- 
tain this  view  by  the  opinions  of  such  scientists  as 
Huxley,  and  I  shall  demonstrate  it  by  facts  presented 
by  such  evolutionists  as  Haeckel.  Mr.  Darwin  has 
presented  a  formidable  array  of  facts  to  demonstrate 
the  correctness  of  his  fundamental  theory  of  organic 
evolution,  and  no  unprejudiced  person  can  deny  that 
he  has  abundantly  sustained  that  theory.  He  has 
also  cited  a  great  number  of  facts  which  he  assumes 
to  have  a  bearing  upon  his  subsidiary  hypothesis. 
Nevertheless,  it  is  true  that  he  has  not  cited  one  case 
where  anything  more  than  a  morphological  species 


IN  TROD  UCTION.  3  5 

has  been  produced,  either  by  natural  or  artificial 
selection.  In  this  sense,  therefore,  his  theory  that 
natural  selection  is  the  origin  of  species  must  be 
relegated  to  the  domain  of  speculative  philosophy 
without  facts  to  sustain  it,  —  the  very  opposite  of 
induction.  I  shall  venture  to  infer  that  his  strenuous 
insistence  upon  that  theory  may  have  been  due  to 
one  or  both  of  two  causes.  One  of  these  was  his 
hostility  to  Lamarck  and  his  theory  of  "  appetency  " 
as  the  cause  of  structural  changes  in  organic  life; 
and  the  other,  his  desire  to  sustain  the  atheistic 
theory  that  physical  organism  antedates,  and  is  the 
cause  of,  life  and  mind. 

In  reference  to  these  questions  I  shall  undertake 
to  show  that  Lamarck's  or  some  cognate  theory  is 
necessary  in  order  to  constitute  a  complete,  coherent 
theory  of  organic  evolution.  That  is  to  say,  no  the- 
ory of  evolution  can  be  complete,  in  the  sense  of 
accounting  for  all  the  facts,  if  either  Lamarck  or 
Darwin  is  left  out.  For  that  reason  I  shall  go  back, 
with  Haeckel,  to  the  beginning  of  organic  life ^  on 
Jhis  planet,and  prove  that  mind  antedates  and  is 
the  cause  of  physical,  structural  organism^  As  these 
crucial  facts  can  be  demonstrated  at  the  beginning 
of  organic  life,  and  are  not  so  easily  proven  at  any 
other  stage  of  evolutionary  development,  I  shall 
claim  the  right  to  hold  that  they  are  typical  exam- 
ples showing  the  cause  of  structural  changes  in 
physical  organism  at  all  subsequent  stages  of  organic 
development.  I  shall  lay  particular  stress  upon  the 
foregoing  considerations  because  of  their  important 
bearing  upon  the  question  of  the  origin  of  life  on 
this  planet 

_  ^  xj  .  —i 

f     P..*    '  '-*-+     Co    i-*  «_'<     C  &-*-*  -t^i-1*-^^,     '-•  '        *rf    «»»-*—* 


36  THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE  OF  MAN. 

The  latter  is-  the  great  question  which  it  is  the 
prime  object  of  this  book  to  discuss.  Two  theories 
are  to  be  considered,  and  each  will  be  treated  with 
special  reference  to  the  facts  of  organic  evolution. 
The  atheistic  theory  will  first  be  considered,  for  the 
reason  that  it  is  more  easily  disposed  of  than  the 
other,  owing  to  the  acknowledged  absence  of  facts  to 
sustain  it.  It  constitutes,  in  fact,  another  striking  illus- 
tration of  the  alacrity  with  which  atheistic  scientists 
will  abandon  the  inductive  processes  of  investigation 
whenever  the  facts  are  against  them. 

The  atheistic  theory  is  that  life  and  mind  origi- 
nated on  this  earth  by  "  spontaneous  generation " 
from  inorganic  matter.  That  is  the  theory,  and  that 
is  all  there  is  of  it.  That  is  to  say,  its  ablest  advo- 
cates acknowledge  that  no  fact  has  ever  yet  been 
brought  to  light  tending  to  prove  that  such  a  thing 
is  possible ;  on  the  contrary,  their  greatest  scientists 
have  spent  years  in  patient  and  persevering  efforts  to 
cause  the  faintest  sign  of  life  to  be  generated  from 
inorganic  matter;  and  each  one  has  been  compelled 
to  acknowledge  his  utter  failure. 

In  a  word,  I  shall  show  by  these  facts,  with  others 
equally  significant,  that  not  only  have  atheistic  scien- 
tists abandoned  and  tacitly  repudiated  the  inductive 
method  at  every  crucial  point  in  their  investigations, 
but  that  all  that  there  is  of  atheism  in  evolution 
consists  of  pure  assumption,  not  only  without  facts  to 
sustain  the  assumptions,  but  in  direct  contravention  of 
all  the  facts  of  nature  and  of  experimental  science. 

*      The  theory  of  the  theistic  evolutionist  is  that  evo- 
lution  is  God's   method   of  creation;    that   life    and 

^  mind  on  this  earth  had  their  origin  in  an  antecedent 


INTRODUCTION.  37 

divine  mind,  —  an  omnipresent  mind-energy,  —  om-1 
nipotent  and  omniscient;  that  this  divine,  intelligent • 
energy  operates,  not  in  contravention  of  law,  not  by 
miraculous  interventions,  not  by  special  creations,  but  \ 
in  pursuance  of  its  own  immutable  laws,  instituted 
from  the  beginning;   and  that,  consequently,  the  first ' 
mind-energy  that  appeared  on  this  earth  was  an  ema-  I 
nation,  in  the  natural  order  of  events,  from  the  Divine ji 
Intelligence. 

In  undertaking  to  establish  the  essential  truth  of 
this  hypothesis  I  shall  be  guided  solely  by  the  ac- 
knowledged facts  of  organic  and  mental  evolution. 
In  other  words,  I  shall  adhere  to  the  inductive  method, 
pure  and  simple. 

In  pursuing  the  investigation  I  shall  again  go  back 
to  the  beginning  of  organic  life,  for  the  obvious 
reason  that  the  nearer  we  approach  to  the  source  of 
anything,  the  more  clearly  will  the  essential  nature  of 
that  source  be  made  manifest;  and  for  the  further 
reason  that  no  one  else,  so  far  as  I  am  aware,  has 
given  adequate  attention  to  the  wonderful  signifi- 
cance, from  a  theistic  point  of  view,  of  the  phenomena 
of  life  and  mind  as  exhibited  in  the  lowest  form  of 
animal  life.  It  must  suffice  in  this  connection  to  say 
that  the  ingenuity  of  man  could  not  devise  a  more 
complete  array  of  evidential  facts  demonstrative  of 
the  divine  origin  of  mind  in  protoplasm  and  its 
potentialities  through  evolutionary  development,  than 
is  found  in  the  monera. 

Evolutionists  tell  us  that  the  potentialities  of  man- 
hood reside  in  that  lowest  animal  organism.  If  man 
descended  from  that  organism,  the  proposition  is 
necessarily  true;  and  I  shall  demonstrate  its  truth 


38  THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

by  indubitable  evidences  that  atheism  has  not  con- 
sidered. In  doing  so,  I  shall  prove  more  clearly  that 
the  moneron  derived  its  mind  and  life  from  God  than 
atheists  have  proven  that  man  descended  from  the 
moneron.  In  other  words,  I  shall  demonstrate  the 
truth  of  their  evolutionary  hypothesis  by  disproving 
their  atheistic  conclusions.  I  shall  not  only  prove 
that  the  potentialities  of  manhood  reside  in  the 
moneron,  but  that  the  essential  attributes  of  omni- 
science there  exist  in  embryo.  Moreover,  I  shall 
prove  by  their  own  showing  that,  differing  only  in 
degree,  the  moneron  is  endowed  with  the  creative 
energy  of  omnipotence;  that  to  that  energy  are  due 
all  the  structural  changes  that  mark  the  steps  in  the 
process  of  organic  evolution ;  and  that  all  human 
progressive  development,  from  savagery  to  the  high- 
est possible  altruistic  civilization,  is  due  to  the  normal 
development  of  faculties  existing  potentially  in  the 
moneron. 

In  the  further  argument  of  the  question  I  shall  not 
only  be  guided  by  the  facts  set  forth  by  the  great 
lights  of  evolutionary  science,  but  I  shall  avail  my- 
self of  their  arguments  as  well.  That  is  to  say,  the 
leading  arguments  employed  by  them  to  prove  the 
theory  of  evolution  will  be  carried  to  their  logical 
conclusions  and  shown  to  be  the  strongest  possible 
arguments  in  support  of  theism.  For  instance,  the 
argument  based  upon  the  law  of  heredity,  which  is 
the  chief  corner-stone  in  the  evolutionary  edifice, 
when  carried  to  its  legitimate  conclusion  will  be  seen 
to  demonstrate  the  logical  necessity  of  a  mind,  ante- 
cedent to  the  moneron,  possessing  powers  identical 
in  kind  with  those  actually  or  potentially  existent  in 


INTRODUCTION.  39 

the  moneron  and  its  descendants.  Any  other  conclu- 
sion involves  the  logical  necessity  of  presupposing  a 
break  in  the  line  of  hereditary  descent,  an  exception 
to  a  law  of  nature,  a  godlike  mind  without  an  an- 
cestral intelligence,  an  effect  without  an  adequate 
cause. 

Again,  I  shall  accept  their  analogical  argument 
from  ontogeny,  which  is  the  history  of  the  evolu- 
tion of  individual  organisms,  to  phylogeny,  which  is 
the  history  of  the  evolution  of  organic  tribes.  Hu- 
man ontogeny,  being  an  exact  repetition  of  all  the 
salient  features  of  human  phylogeny,  constitutes  one 
of  the  most  conclusive  arguments  in  support  of  the 
theory  of  organic  evolution.  Both  ontogeny  and 
phylogeny  begin  with  an  undifferentiated  cell  of  pro- 
toplasm, and  in  both  cases  that  cell  culminates  in 
man.  But  if  the  analogy  be  carried  to  its  legitimate 
and  logically  necessary  conclusion,  it  necessitates  an 
ancestral  mind  for  the  moneron  as  well  as  for  the 
germinal  cell  of  man,  and  for  precisely  the  same 
reasons.  Certainly  the  analogy  is  incomplete  with- 
out it,  and  no  scientist  will  deny  the  proposition  that 
science  has  never  yet  discovered  any  process  by 
which  faculties  have  been  acquired,  either  in  on- 
togeny or  phylogeny,  except  by  inheritance*  The 
atheistic  evolutionist,  therefore,  cannot  avoid  the 
conclusion  that  the  moneron  inherited  its  powers, 
actual  and  potential,  from  a  divine  ancestry,  without 
repudiating  his  own  logic,  ignoring  his  own  facts, 
and  abandoning  the  inductive  method  of  scientific 
research.  All  this  he  deliberately  does  when  he 
seeks,  in  the  theory  of  spontaneous  generation  from 
inorganic  chemical  compounds,  to  account  for  the 


40  THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE  OF  MAN, 

divine   potentialities    resident    in   the   mind    of    the 
moneron. 

When  these  arguments  are  fully  stated  and  under- 
stood, they  will  not  only  be  found  to  establish  clearly 
the  theory  of  the  divine  origin  of  life  and  mind  on 
this  earth,  but,  at  the  same  time,  to  confirm  fully  the 
Christian  doctrine  of  the  divine  pedigree  of  man. 
Having  clearly  proven  the  latter  hypothesis,  I  shall 
then  venture  to  reverse  the  process  of  inquiry,  by 
taking  man  as  the  basis  and  reasoning  back  to  his 
divine  origin,  with  a  view  of  finding  what  concep- 
tions of  divine  attributes  are  derivable  from  our 
knowledge  of  the  faculties  possessed  by  man.  In 
classifying  the  latter  I  shall  be  guided  by  the  prin- 
ciples of,  and  facts  developed  by,  the  new  psychol- 
ogy. By  this  I  mean  the  hypothesis  of  duality  of 
mind,  as  set  forth  in  my  published  works.1  I  shall, 
therefore,  analyze  the  faculties  of  the  subjective 
mind  of  man,  as  they  have  been  revealed  to  the 
scientific  world  by  means  of  experimental  psychol- 
ogy, and  show  that  those  faculties,  by  simple  en- 
largement and  extension  to  infinity,  would  become 
the  highest  conceivable  attributes  of  an  omniscient, 
omnipotent,  omnipresent  God  of  infinite  and  uni- 
versal love,  —  the  God  of  Christian  hope  and  faith. 
In  other  words,  I  shall  prove  inductively  that  the 
soul  of  man  is  "  made  in  the  image  of  God."  Not 
morphologically  or  anthropologically  is  man  made 
in  the  image  of  his  Divine  Father,  but  psychologi- 
cally. The  charge  of  anthropomorphism  will  not 
lie  against  this  conception  of  God  and  his  attributes ; 

1  "  The  Law  of  Psychic  Phenomena  "  and  "  A  Scientific  Demon- 
stration of  the  Future  Life." 


INTRODUCTION.  4* 

for  the  trend  of  the  argument  will  be,  not  to  show 
that  God  is  infinitely  human,  but  to  prove  that  man 
is  potentially  divine. 

In  short,  the  conception  of  the  Deity  derivable 
from  the  facts  of  evolution  and  psychology  is  of 
divine  immanence  without  pantheism,  and  of  person- 
ality without  anthropomorphism. 

Before  proceeding  to  the  consideration  of  the 
scientific  aspects  of  the  question,  I  shall  devote  one 
chapter  to  that  phase  of  atheism  which  has  been 
designated  as  "  agnosticism,"  with  a  view  of  showing 
that  the  principles  upon  which  the  latter  cult  base 
their  conclusions  make  a.primafacie  case  in  favor  of 
the  religion  which  they  repudiate. 


CHAPTER    I. 

AGNOSTICISM. 

Definition  of  "  Agnosticism."  —  Aggressive  Ignorance.  —  Mr.  Her- 
bert Spencer's  "First  Principles." — His  Charitable  Effort  to 
harmonize  Religion  and  Science.  —  His  "  Great  Unknowable."  — 
His  Numerous  "  Unthinkables." — His  Pctitio  Principii.  —  His 
Dogmatism. —  His  Statement  of  Fundamental  Propositions. — 
His  Lame  and  Impotent  Conclusions.  —  His  "  Basis  of  Reconcil- 
iation."—  It  is  simply  a  Wholesale  Acknowledgment  of  Igno- 
rance.—  It  strikes  at  the  very  Root  of  Christian  Faith.  —  It  invites 
Imbecile  Acquiescence  in  Agnosticism  instead  of  Scientific  Inves- 
tigation of  Theism. —  Mr.  Spencer's  "First  Principles"  Re-exam- 
ined.—  A  Legitimate  Conclusion  Sought  for. —  The  Conditions 
Requisite. —The  Fundamental  Harmony  of  all  Religions.  —  No 
Real  Conflict  between  Religion  and  Science.  —  It  is  between 
Science  and  Man-made  Theological  Dogmas.  —  True  Science  is 
True  Religion's  Best  Friend  —  True  Science  is  promotive  of  the 
Highest  Conceptions  of,  and  the  most  Exalted  Reverence  for,  the 
God  of  Christian  Faith.  —  Science  is  Promotive  of  all  Truth. — 
There  are  not  two  Antagonistic  Orders  of  Truth.  —  Truth  the 
only  Basis  of  Reconciliation  between  Religion  and  Science.— 
Science  furnishes  the  Data  for  the  Inductive  Study  of  Religion. 

AGNOSTICISM  is  generally  supposed  to  imply 
an  acknowledgment  of  ignorance  of  super- 
mundane agencies  and  conditions.  It  is  apparent, 
however,  that  the  agnosticism  of  science,  as  exem- 
plified by  those  great  scientists  whose  attitude  in 
relation  to  current  religious  beliefs  necessitated  the 
coinage  of  a  new  word  to  express  it,  can  be  best 
defined  as  aggressive  ignorance.  An  "  agnostic,"  as 
exemplified  by  such  scientists,  is  one  who  presumes 
to  define  the  limits  of  human  knowledge,  and  upon 


AGNOSTICISM.  43 

those  limits  to  erect  a  barrier  against  all  further  in- 
quiry. I  need  no  better  illustration  than  that  afforded 
by  the  writings  of  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer,  who  is  ac- 
knowledged to  be  the  fairest  and  most  unprejudiced 
of  all  that  great  constellation  of  intellectual  stars 
whose  coruscations  have,  as  never  before,  illuminated 
the  path  of  scientific  progress. 

Mr.  Spencer,  in  his  charitable  effort  to  harmonize 
science  and  religion,1  undertakes  to  mark  the  boun- 
dary line  between  the  "  knowable "  and  the  "  un- 
knowable," and  to  inhibit  all  effort,  of  either  religion 
or  science,  to  look  beyond  the  limits  thus  defined. 
The  "  unknowable  "  is  the  entity  which  he  invites  re- 
ligion and  science  to  unite  in  worshiping;  and  his 
recipe  for  securing  absolute  harmony  between  the 
worshipers,  —  the  soporific  agent,  so  to  speak,  by 
means  of  which  each  is  to  be  lulled  into  that  somno- 
lent condition  in  which  distinctions  are  not  observable 
and  opinions  are  relegated  to  the  domain  of  "  innocu- 
ous desuetude,"  —  his  recipe  for  securing  harmony 
consists  in  a  mutual  agreement  that  neither  of  the 
high  contracting  parties  shall  affirm  or  deny  anything 
worth  mentioning  in  relation  to  the  hypothetical  entity 
that  may  be  supposed  to  sustain  a  provisional  exist- 
ence on  the  "  unknowable  "  side  of  Mr.  Spencer's 
boundary  line. 

The  things  which  he  invites  the  united  hosts  of 
religion  and  science  to  ignore  are  numerous.  The 
most  of  them  are  cherished  beliefs  of  the  most  en- 
lightened men  of  Christian  civilization ;  but  Mr. 
Spencer  disposes  of  them  all  with  great  celerity  by  a 
method  that  is  at  once  unique  and  effective,  simple 

1  See  "  First  Principles,"  Part  I,  "  The  Unknowable." 


44  THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

to  the  last  degree,  and  easily  understood  and  applied. 
It  consists  in  the  employment  of  a  phrase  that  Mr. 
Spencer  invented  himself,  apparently  to  enable  him 
to  establish  his  "  First  Principles  "  by  a  method  as 
simple  as  first  principles  themselves  usually  are. 

"  It  is  unthinkable,"  is  the  polemical  dynamite 
bomb  with  which  he  demolishes  those  refractory 
propositions  which  refuse  to  yield  to  the  clumsy 
weapons  of  logic.  And  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the 
"  potential  energy "  of  that  phrase  is  incalculable. 
The  rapidity  with  which  it  has  gone  into  general  use 
among  a  certain  class  of  philosophers  and  scientists 
as  a  labor-saving  substitute  for  logic  and  argument, 
shows  that  it  supplied  a  long-felt  want. 

To  do  Mr.  Spencer  entire  justice,  it  must  be 
admitted  that  he  never  employs  it  except  in  cases  of 
emergency.  But  in  building  up  his  "  Great  Unknow- 
able," he  felt  compelled  to  employ  the  paradoxical 
method  of  subtraction ;  that  is  to  say,  he  subtracted 
a  large  and  varied  assortment  of  "  unthinkable " 
attributes  from  the  God  of  Christian  faith,  in  order  to 
increase  the  magnitude  of  an  "  unthinkable  "  entity, 
—  an  "  inconceivable  abstraction,"  which  he  dogmati- 
cally designates  as  "The  Unknowable."  I  employ 
the  word  "  dogmatically  "  with  deliberation,  for  when 
Mr.  Spencer  assumes  to  designate  the  Great  First 
Cause  as  "  Unknowable,"  he  deliberately  begs  the 
question  —  the  vital  question — at  issue  between 
religion  and  materialistic  science.  If  he  had  chosen 
a  more  modest  term,  as,  for  instance,  "  Unfathom- 
able," it  would  have  been  more  befitting  the  conser- 
vatism and  caution  of  true  science,  and  no  one  would 
presume  to  question  the  implied  limitation  of  finite 


AGNOSTICISM.  45 

intelligence.  It  is,  in  fact,  not  only  an  unwarranted 
assumption,  —  a  petitio  principii, —  violative  of  the 
"first  principles"  of  logical  ratiocination,  for  Mr. 
Spencer  to  employ  the  term  "  unknowable "  as  he 
employs  it ;  but,  as  I  shall  presently  show,  the  assump- 
tion is  not  a  legitimate  deduction  from  the  fundamental 
premise  of  his  argument. 

In  the  meantime  I  wish  to  further  justify  my  state- 
ment regarding  the  monumental  dogmatism  of  agnos- 
ticism, and  to  show  that  I  am  justified  in  defining  it 
as  "  aggressive  ignorance."  As  I  have  already  inti- 
mated, the  term  "  unknowable  "  is  in  itself  the  very 
quintessence  of  dogmatism,  for  it  is  in  itself  a  decla- 
ration, not  alone  of  ignorance  (agnosticism),  but  of  the 
impossibility  of  any  one  ever  knowing  anything  con- 
cerning the  Great  Abstraction  of  which  Mr.  Spencer 
thinks  he  is  thinking.  The  most  aggressive  part  of 
his  dogmatism,  however,  is  manifested  when,  in  a 
mild  and  roundabout  way,  to  be  sure,  he  denounces 
religion  as  "irreligious"  when  it  persists  in  be- 
lieving some  of  his  "  unthinkable  "  propositions ;  and 
in  like  manner  stigmatizes  science  as  "  unscien- 
tific "  when  it  presumes  to  inquire  beyond  the  boun- 
dary which  separates  what  Mr.  Spencer  knows  from 
that  which  he  does  not  know.  In  other  words,  when 
religion  persists  in  thinking  that  which  Mr.  Spencer 
thinks  is  unthinkable,  it  becomes  irreligious;  and 
when  science  tries  to  find  out  something  that  Mr. 
Spencer  thinks  is  unknowable,  it  becomes  unscientific. 
Obviously,  under  the  limitations  of  his  environment, 
Mr.  Spencer  could  inflict  no  severer  punishment  upon 
the  respective  recalcitrants.  We  have,  then,  the 
spectacle  presented  to  us  of  the  mildest,  the  gentlest, 


46  THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

and  in  many  respects  the  greatest,  of  all  the  agnos- 
tics visiting  his  severest  possible  penalties  upon  those 
who  differ  with  him  in  opinion  on  questions  of  science 
and  religion.     Torquemada  could  have  done  no  more. 
Mr.  Spencer's  statement  of  the  major  premise  of 
his    argument  affords  a  striking    illustration    of  the 
l~  axiom   that    the    man   who    attempts   to   wage  war 
\  against  truth  invariably  places  in  the  hands  of  his 
•  enemy  the  weapons  for  its  defence. 

His  proposition,  in  its  simplest  form  of  expression, 
is  that  "  There  is  a  soul  of  truth  in  things  errone- 
ous." This  axiom  he  applies  to  the  aggregate  of 
religious  beliefs,  declaring  that  this  general  principle 
"  must  lead  us  to  anticipate  that  the  diverse  forms  of 
religious  belief  which  have  existed  and  still  exist,  have 
all  a  basis  of  some  ultimate  fact.  .  .  .  To  suppose," 
he  continues,  "  that  these  multiform  conceptions 
should  be  one  and  all  absolutely  groundless  discredits 
too  profoundly  that  average  human  intelligence  from 
which  all  our  individual  intelligences  are  inherited. 

"This  most  general  reason  we  shall  find  enforced  by 
other  more  special  ones.  To  the  presumption  that  a 
number  of  diverse  beliefs  of  the  same  class  have  some 
common  foundation  in  fact,  must  in  this  case  be  added 
a  further  presumption  derived  from  the  omnipresence  of 
the  beliefs.  Religious  ideas  of  one  kind  or  other  are 
almost  universal.  Admitting  that  in  many  places  there 
are  tribes  who  have  no  theory  of  creation,  no  word  for  a 
deity,  no  propitiatory  acts,  no  idea  of  another  life,  —  ad- 
mitting that  only  when  a  certain  phase  of  intelligence  is 
reached  do  the  most  rudimentary  of  such  theories  make 
their  appearance,  —  the  implication  is  practically  the  same. 
Grant  that  among  all  races  who  have  passed  a  certain 


AGNOSTICISM.  47 

stage  of  intellectual  development  there  are  found  vague 
notions  concerning  the  origin  and  hidden  nature  of  sur- 
rounding things ;  and  there  arises  the  inference  that  such 
notions  are  necessary  products  of  progressing  intelligence. 
Their  endless  variety  serves  but  to  strengthen  this  con- 
clusion ;  showing  as  it  does  a  more  or  less  independent 
genesis,  —  showing  how,  in  different  places  and  times,  like 
conditions  have  led  to  similar  trains  of  thought,  ending  in 
analogous  results.  That  these  countless  different,  and  yet 
allied,  phenomena  presented  by  all  religions  are  accidental 
or  factitious,  is  an  untenable  supposition.  A  candid  exam- 
ination of  the  evidence  quite  negatives  the  doctrine  main- 
tained by  some,  that  creeds  are  priestly  inventions.  .  .  . 
Thus  the  universality  of  religious  ideas,  their  indepen- 
dent evolution  among  different  primitive  races,  and  their 
great  vitality  unite  in  showing  that  their  source  must  be 
deep-seated  instead  of  superficial." 

Later  on  Mr.  Spencer  alludes  to  the  emotional 
nature  of  the  religious  sentiment  as  follows:  — 

"  And  if  the  religious  sentiment  displayed  habitually  by 
the  majority  of  mankind,  and  occasionally  aroused  even  in 
those  seemingly  devoid  of  it,  must  be  classed  among  human 
emotions,  we  cannot  rationally  ignore  it.  We  are  bound 
to  ask  its  origin  and  its  function.  Here  is  an  attribute 
which,  to  say  the  least,  has  had  an  enormous  influence,  — 
which  has  played  a  conspicuous  part  throughout  the  entire 
past  as  far  back  as  history  records,  and  ia  at  present  the 
life  of  numerous  institutions,  the  stimulus  to  perpetual  con- 
troversies, and  the  prompter  to  countless  daily  actions. 
Any  theory  of  things  which  takes  no  account  of  this  attri- 
bute must,  then,  be  extremely  defective." 

This  statement  of  Mr.  Spencer's  fundamental 
premise  is  seemingly  as  fair  and  candid  as  the  exact 


48  THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE  OF  MAN. 

language  of  a  great  scientist  could  make  it.  Here 
is  a  statement  of  a  broad  fact  that  every  person  of 
intelligence  recognizes  and  must  admit.  "  There  is 
a  soul  of  truth  in  things  erroneous."  "  There  is  truth 
in  everything."  What  could  be  fairer?  What  could 
be  more  conciliatory?  Nay,  what  could  be  rarer 
than  the  exhibition  of  such  a  broad  and  catholic 
spirit  by  a  great  scientist  when  dealing  with  the 
religious  beliefs  of  all  humanity?  It  serves  to  es- 
tablish mutually  pleasant  relations  between  Mr. 
Spencer  and  his  readers,  to  say  the  least.  It  in- 
duces in  the  latter  a  state  of  easy  confidence,  —  a 
condition  of  "  passive  receptivity,"  as  the  hypno- 
tists say,  so  that  they  are  prone  to  accept  further 
"suggestions"  without  critical  examination. 

Now,  let  us  for  a  moment  examine  Mr.  Spencer's 
liberal  proposition  with  reference  to  the  alleged 
object  of  his  essay.  His  avowed  purpose  is  to 
reconcile  religion  with  science.  To  that  end  he 
sets  out  in  search  of  an  "  ultimate  religious  truth 
of  the  highest  possible  certainty,"  —  a  truth  which 
will  not  only  reconcile  science  with  religion,  but 
"  one  in  which  religions  in  general  are  at  one  with 
each  other." 

This  statement  of  his  purpose,  which  is  substan- 
tially in  his  own  language,  naturally  leads  one  to 
believe  that  Mr.  Spencer  has  undertaken  a  task  in 
the  success  of  which  every  human  being  has  the 
highest  possible  interest.  It  is  obvious  that  "  an 
ultimate  religious  truth  of  the  highest  possible  cer- 
tainty" must  also  be  a  scientific  truth  of  equal 
certainty,  if  true  religion  and  true  science  are  to  be 
reconciled.  But  the  majority  of  mankind  will  agree 


AGNOSTICISM.  49 

that  the  basis  of  such  a  reconciliation,  if  it  is  to  be 
of  any  possible  value  to  mankind,  must  be  not  only 
an  ultimate  truth  of  the  highest  possible  certainty, 
but  also  one  of  the  highest  possible  value  to  science 
and  of  utility  to  the  world  at  large  in  the  regulation 
of  human  conduct. 

This,  however,  is  far  from  the  kind  of  reconcilia- 
tion that  is  the  object  of  Mr.  Spencer's  ambition. 

Now,  let  us  briefly  examine  this  "  ultimate  reli- 
gious truth  of  the  highest  possible  certainty,"  — 
this  potent  verity  that  is  capable  of  obliterating  the 
distinctions  between  fetichism  and  Christianity,  this 
ultimate  scientific  truth  that  is  the  essence  alike 
of  all  religions  and  of  all  science.  We  have  Mr. 
Spencer's  word  for  it,  that  on  the  religious  side  it 
is  this:  "The  Power  which  the  universe  manifests 
to  us  is  utterly  inscrutable."  On  the  scientific  side, 
this  is  the  formula:  "  In  its  ultimate  essence  nothing 
can  be  known." 

Considering  first  the  statement  of  ultimate  "  scien- 
tific "  verity,  it  must  be  admitted  that  it  has  the  orac- 
ular ring  of  a  scientific  formula.  Moreover,  it  must 
be  conceded  that  it  is  a  great  fact,  and  a  very  incon- 
venient one,  by  the  way,  that  there  are  very  many 
things  in  this  world  that,  to  borrow  the  formula  of 
Lord  Dundreary,  "  no  fellow  can  find  out."  But 
that  great  "ultimate  truth"  was  not  the  original 
discovery  of  Mr.  Spencer,  albeit  the  pains  which  he 
has  taken  to  demonstrate  it;  and  to  correlate  it  with 
his  "  ultimate  religious  truth "  would  lead  one  to 
suppose  that  he  regarded  himself  as  the  Columbus 
of  ultimate  verity  and  of  human  limitations.  It  can- 
not be  denied,  however,  that  he  was  the  "original 

4 


50  THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

and  first  "  discoverer  of  the  fact  that  the  two  formulas 
are  equivalent,  nor  will  any  one  seek  to  rob  him  of 
the  glory  due  to  one  who  has  been  able  to  found  a 
school  of  religious  philosophy  upon  that  assumption. 

We  may,  therefore,  concede  that,  in  a  limited 
sense,  his  scientific  formula  is  a  statement  of  an  ulti- 
mate scientific  truth.  But  by  no  stretch  of  liber- 
ality of  construction  can  his  so-called  "  ultimate 
religious  truth "  be  classed  even  as  a  theological 
dogma,  much  less  as  an  undisputed  and  indisputable 
religious  truth.  Like  his  so-called  scientific  truth, 
it  is  simply  Mr.  Spencer's  oracular  way  of  making 
a  statement  relating  to  the  supposed  limitations  of 
human  intelligence. 

Moreover,  when  Mr.  Spencer  offers,  as  a  basis  of 
universal  harmonic  relations,  the  declaration  that 
"the  Power  which  the  universe  manifests  to  us  is 
utterly  inscrutable,"  he  is  guilty  of  that  most  heinous 
of  all  logical  offences,  —  begging  the  question.  For 
that  is  the  very  question  at  issue  between  the  Chris- 
tian religion  and  science  —  or  rather  between  the 
Christian  religion  and  such  scientists  as  Herbert 
Spencer.  The  very  essence  of  Christian  belief  in 
God  is  that  man  necessarily  sustains  a  natural  rela- 
tionship to  his  Creator  of  a  most  intimate  char- 
acter; and  that,  therefore,  some  knowledge  of  the 
Great  First  Cause  is  not  only  possible,  but  inevitable. 
No  Christian  has  -ever  denied  the  inscrutability  of 
"  the  Power  that  the  universe  manifests  to  us,"  in  the 
general  sense  of  the  term.  But  that  it  is  utterly 
inscrutable  is  a  doctrine  that  strikes  at  the  very  root 
of  Christian  faith,  and  is  an  utter  repudiation  of  the 
life  and  doctrines  of  the  Great  Founder  of  the  Chris- 


A  GNOSTICISM.  5 1 

tian  religion.  And  yet  this  is  just  what  Mr.  Spencer 
does  when  he  employs  the  words  "  utterly  inscru- 
table." 

His  attitude  may  be  summed  up  in  a  very  few 
words :  — 

He  starts  out  professedly  in  search  of  the  one 
great,  fundamental,  "  ultimate  religious  truth  "  that 
underlies,  and  is  the  vital,  constituent  element  of,  all 
religions,  from  "  fetichism  to  Christianity."  When 
he  finds  it  and  presents  it  to  an  expectant  world,  it 
is  seen  that  it  is  not  a  religious  truth  at  all;  that  it 
is  not  a  tenet  of  any  religion  on  earth ;  that  it  is  a 
proposition  that  has  never  been  considered,  either 
as  a  fundamental  principle  or  as  a  constituent  ele- 
ment of  any  religion  whatever;  but  that,  on  the  con- 
trary, it  is  a  proposition  that  strikes  at  the  very  root 
of  every  religion  worthy  of  the  name;  and  finally, 
that  it  is  a  statement  that  is  and  must  be  repudiated 
as  the  crassest  atheism  by  every  Christian  denomina- 
tion. An  acceptance  of  it  by  the  religious  and  scien- 
tific world  as  a  basis  of  reconciliation,  on  the  terms 
proposed  by  Mr.  Spencer,  would  at  once  arrest  all 
progress  in  the  inductive  investigation  of  the  claims 
of  Christianity,  and  reduce  the  religious  world  to  a 
state  of  hopeless  imbecility.  For,  be  it  remembered, 
his  prescription  enjoins  abstention  from  either  affir- 
mation or  denial  of  any  doctrine  or  belief  concerning 
God  or  his  attributes;  and  this  inhibition  extends 
alike  to  science  and  religion.  His  sole  religious 
creed  —  his  recipe  for  reconciliation  —  is  incarnated, 
so  to  speak,  in  that  portentous  sentence :  "  The 
Power  that  the  universe  manifests  to  us  is  utterly 
inscrutable." 


52  THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

And  this  is  agnosticism. 

The  animus  of  Mr.  Spencer's  effort  must  now  be 
apparent.  In  searching  for  a  formula  of  reconcilia- 
tion he  carefully  avoided  the  statement  of  any  prop- 
osition confirmatory  of  the  beliefs  of  any  religious 
sect  or  system  that  ever  existed ;  and  in  making  his 
selection  he  took  care  to  formulate  a  declaration  that 
is  in  absolute  antagonism  to  the  fundamental  doc- 
trines of  Christianity. 

Furthermore,  while  no  religious  sect  can  indorse 
Mr.  Spencer's  creed,  still  less  can  it  be  indorsed  by 
science.  For  if  science  stands  for  anything,  it  is  for 
truth.  It  is  its  province  to  search  for  causes  of 
phenomena,  proximate  and  remote.  There  are 
doubtless,  many  scientists  who  are  delighted  to  be 
able  to  formulate  their  atheistic  views  in  Mr. 
Spencer's  terms ;  but  there  are  many  others  whose 
quest  is  of  inductive  proofs  of  Holy  Writ,  —  who  be- 
lieve that  scientific  methods  of  research  will  yet  re- 
veal something  of  the  nature  and  attributes  of  the 
great  "  Power  which  the  universe  manifests  to  us." 

It  follows  that  Mr.  Spencer's  great  scheme  for  the 
reconciliation  of  religion  with  science  has  failed,  and 
must  forever  fail,  for  the  reason  that  an  acceptance 
of  his  terms  involves  the  total  abandonment  of  all 
that  either  one  of  them  stands  for.  Science  and  re- 
ligion can  never  be  reconciled  upon  the  basis  of  a 
negative  proposition  that  is  neither  religious  nor 
scientific,  especially  one  that  is  expressly  repudiated 
by  both. 

Now,  to  put  Mr.  Spencer's  propositions  into  com- 
mon language,  the  meaning  of  which  can  be  grasped 
by  common  people,  they  may  be  stated  thus :  — 


AGNOSTICISM.  53 

To  the  religionist  he  says :  There  is  just  one  ulti- 
mate religious  truth  of  the  highest  possible  certainty 
that  you  must  admit  before  your  religion  can  be 
reconciled  with  science,  and  that  is  that  you  do  not 
know  anything  about  religion. 

To  the  scientist  he  says:  There  is  one  ultimate 
scientific  verity  that  you  must  admit  before  your 
science  can  be  reconciled  with  religion,  and  that  is 
that  you  do  not  know  everything  about  science. 

It  is  now  quite  obvious  why  it  was  that  Mr. 
Spencer's  proposed  Great  Church  of  the  Reconcilia- 
tion was  destined  to  prove  a  failure  from  the  start: 
neither  party  could  conscientiously  subscribe  to  the 
creed. 

Let  us  now  re-examine  the  fundamental  proposi- 
tions with  which  Mr.  Spencer  started  out  and  see  if 
we  cannot  find  a  legitimate  conclusion.  The  propo- 
sitions may  be  summed  up,  in  Mr.  Spencer's  words, 
thus:  "In  all  religions,  even  the  rudest,  there  lies 
hidden  a  fundamental  verity,"  "  common  to  all  reli- 
gions," a  "  religious  truth,"  in  relation  to  which  "  all 
religions  are  at  one  with  each  other,"  etc.  As  already 
pointed  out,  Mr.  Spencer  promised  to  consider  this 
fundamental  truth,  but  carefully  avoided  doing  so. 
He  specifically  mentioned  one  of  the  most  obvious  of 
all  the  fundamental  truths  common  to  all  religions, 
—  its  emotional  nature,  —  and  distinctly  promised 
to  consider  "  its  origin  and  its  function ;  "  declaring 
that  "  any  theory  of  things  which  takes  no  account 
of  this  attribute  must,  then,  be  extremely  defective." 
He  then  dismisses  that  most  important  attribute 
of  religion  by  declaring  that,  as  to  its  origin,  it 
"  arose  by  a  process  of  evolution ;  "  and,  as  to  its 


54  THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAM 

function,  it  "  must  be  adapted  to  the  requirements  of 
existence,"  adding,  with  confessed  reluctance,  "  we  are 
also  forced  to  infer  that  this  feeling  is  in  some  way 
conducive  to  human  welfare." 

It  seems  almost  incredible  that  Mr.  Spencer  should 
have  thus  summarily  dismissed  the  consideration  of 
an  attribute  of  religion  which,  to  use  his  own  words, 
"has  had  an  enormous  influence  —  which  has  played 
a  conspicuous  part  throughout  the  entire  past  as  far 
back  as  history  records,  and  is  at  present  the  life 
of  numerous  institutions,  the  stimulus  of  perpetual 
controversies,  and  the  prompter  of  countless  daily 
actions."  And  yet  this  is  just  what  he  has  done,  in 
order  to  give  prominence  to  his  lame  and  impotent 
conclusion  which  has  already  been  discussed. 

Now,  let  us  adopt  Mr.  Spencer's  fundamental,  or 
major,  premise  as  our  own,  and  briefly  inquire,  What 
is  that  underlying  truth  which  is  common  to  all  reli- 
gions, from  fetichism  to  Christianity?  In  doing  so, 
let  us  employ  the  inductive  process,  and  consider 
nothing  but  the  well-recognized  facts  pertaining  to 
the  subject-matter;  bearing  in  mind  always  that 
we  are  discussing  the  mental  phenomena  of  reli- 
gious experience,  and  not  the  limitations  of  human 
intelligence. 

Now,  this  truth,  when  found,  if  it  is  to  possess 
any  evidential  value  for  any  purpose  whatever, 
must  possess  certain  well-defined  characteristics. 
Amongst  these  are :  — 

i.  It  must  correlate  all  religions  that  have  ever 
existed,  on  the  well-recognized  lines  of  religious 
experience. 

This  is  the  general  proposition.     Then,  if  it  is  to 


AGNOSTICISM.  55 

possess  any  evidential  value  in  itself  as  to  its  divine 
origin,  or  as  to  its  natural  adaptation  to  the  require- 
ments of  existence,  or  its  capacity  to  promote  human 
welfare,  it  must  possess  certain  further  characteristics, 
namely:  — 

2.  It  must  be  an  instinctive  attribute  common  to 
all  races  of  mankind  above  those  of  the  lowest  grade 
of  human  intelligence. 

3.  It  must  be  capable  of  evolutionary  develop- 
ment without  change  of  its  essential  characteristic. 

4.  It  must,  in  its  every  stage  of  progressive  de- 
velopment, be  more  and  more  "  conducive  to  human 
welfare." 

5.  It  must,  in  its  highest  stage  of  development, 
be   found    to   be   the  concomitant  of    the    highest 
civilization. 

6.  It  must  be  an  attribute  that,  without  change  of 
its  essential  characteristic,  develops  in  power,  if  not 
in  intensity,  and  becomes  more  and  more  exalted  in 
its  manifestations  with  every  step  in  the  progress  of 
science. 

7.  And  finally,  it  must  be  an  attribute  the  impli- 
cations of  which  cannot  be  disproved  by  scientific 
induction ;     but   which,    on   the    contrary,    attain    a 
higher  and  higher  degree  of  probability  the  more 
strictly  and  the  more  directly  the  processes  of  in- 
ductive reasoning  are  applied  to  them. 

Now,  this  attribute  which  correlates  all  religions 
and  in  which  all  are  at  one  with  each  other,  con- 
sists in  the  belief,  with  which  each  individual  is 
imbued,  in  a  spiritual  being,  mightier  than  himself, 
but  not  indifferent  to  his  thoughts  and  acts,  and  upon 
whom  lie  feels  a  consciousness  of  dependence. 


56  THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

It  is  obvious  that  this  applies  alike  to  the  fetich 
worshipper  and  the  Christian,  together  with  all  the 
intermediate  grades  and  varieties  of  religious  belief. 
The  difference  between  religions  consists  in  the 
different  conceptions  of  the  nature  and  attributes 
of  the  object  of  worship,  the  relations  that  exist 
between  that  being  and  man,  and  the  emotions  and 
practices  which  flow  from  the  recognition  of  such 
relations. 

Now,  let  us  see  if  this  underlying  truth  answers  to 
the  requirements  above  mentioned. 

F"irst,  then,  it  obviously  correlates  all  religions. 
(2)  It  must  be  an  instinctive  emotion,  since  it  is 
common  to  all  races  of  men  above  a  certain  grade  of 
intelligence.  That  there  are  tribes  of  savages  so 
low  in  the  scale  of  being  that  they  have  no  idea  of  a 
deity  or  of  a  future  life,  simply  goes  to  prove  that 
religion  is  an  inevitable  outgrowth  of  progressing 
intelligence.  (3)  That  it  is  capable  of  evolutionary 
development,  and  (4)  that  in  its  every  higher  stage 
of  manifestation  it  is  more  and  more  conducive  to 
human  welfare,  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  (5)  in  its 
highest  stage  of  development  it  is  the  inseparable 
accompaniment  of  the  world's  highest  civilization. 

6.  The  history  of  the  great  conflict  between 
science  and  religion,  or  more  properly  between 
science  and  ecclesiasticism,  demonstrates  the  pro- 
gressive character  of  true  religion.  There  never 
has  been  a  conflict  between  science  and  religion. 
Science  has  never  waged  war  upon  religion.  It  has 
from  time  to  time  been  forced  to  disclose  the  fal- 
lacies of  various  theological  dogmas,  and  a  fierce 
struggle  has  as  often  ensued.  But  whenever  theol- 


AGNOSTICISM.  57 

ogy  has  been  forced  to  yield,  religion  has  always 
been  the  gainer;  for  every  greatly  advanced  step 
that  has  ever  been  taken  by  science  has  by  just  so 
much  enlarged,  exalted,  and  refined  man's  concep- 
tions of  the  Deity  and  his  attributes.  And  no  one 
will  deny  that,  in  so  far  as  man's  conceptions  of  the 
Deity  and  his  attributes  have  been  thus  exalted,  by 
just  so  much  have  the  religious  emotions  of  rever- 
ence, love,  and  worship  been  justified,  increased,  and 
exalted.  Science,  therefore,  in  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury has,  in  this  sense,  continued  the  work  which 
Jesus  began  in  the  first  century.  For  one  of  the 
greatest  services  that  Jesus  performed  for  religion 
and  for  humanity  was  his  express  repudiation  of 
the  crude,  anthropopathic  conceptions  of  God  which 
had  been  handed  down  from  the  early  Jewish 
prophets.  In  their  place  he  has  given  us  a  con- 
ception of  God,  his  attributes,  and  his  relations 
to  man,  that  has  served  to  intensify,  purify,  exalt, 
and  justify  that  instinctive  emotion  which  is  the 
basic  attribute  of  all  religions.  And  science  has 
continued  the  work  by  revealing  truths  which  serve 
to  confirm  the  intuitions  of  the  Master  and  justify 
his  conclusions.  Not  that  scientists  have  deliberately 
set  themselves  to  do  this  thing;  for  they  have  not. 
On  the  contrary,  each  new  scientific  discovery  has 
been  the  signal  for  a  shout  in  chorus  that  "  religion 
has  been  destroyed,  and  God  has  been  eliminated 
from  the  universe."  But  when  the  tumult  subsides 
it  is  always  found  that  God  still  reigns  and  religion 
still  lives.  A  man-made  dogma  may  have  been 
shown  to  be  fallacious ;  but  religion  is  all  the 
stronger  for  the  elimination  of  an  error. 


58          THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

Perhaps  it  is  just  as  well  that  scientists  have 
chosen  to  assume  a  hostile  attitude  to  religion;  for 
its  friends  can  always  rest  assured  that  its  survival 
is  due  to  its  vitality  and  not  to  any  lack  of  aggres- 
sive effort  on  the  part  of  its  enemies. 

On  the  whole,  science  has  been  religion's  best 
friend,  and  the  Church  is  beginning  to  realize  the 
fact  No  intelligent  Christian  would  now  be  willing 
to  see  any  one  of  the  great  discoveries  of  modern 
science  eliminated  from  the  world's  stock  of  knowl- 
edge, however  determinedly  his  church  may  have 
resisted  the  innovation  when  it  was  first  promul- 
gated. No  Roman  Catholic  would  now  consent  to 
a  return  to  the  Ptolemaic  system  of  astronomy,  al- 
though his  church  fought  the  Copernican  system 
for  more  than  two  hundred  years.  No  Protestant 
would  willingly  consent  to  the  elimination  of  the 
Newtonian  theorem  from  the  world's  stock  of  science, 
although,  as  Luther  had  reviled  Copernicus,  so  did 
his  successors  denounce  Newton  because  "  he  sub- 
stituted gravity  for  Providence."  l  No  intelligent 
Christian  would  now  consent  to  part  with  his  knowl- 
edge of  geology,  notwithstanding  the  rudeness  of  his 
first  awakening  from  the  poetic  dream  of  a  six-day 
creation.  And  so  with  the  law  of  evolution.  There 
are  few  Christians  among  those  who  have  given 
intelligent  attention  to  the  study  of  the  subject,  who 
could  be  induced  to  relinquish  the  lofty  conceptions 
of  the  nature  and  attributes  of  the  Deity,  growing 
out  of  the  contemplation  of  the  infinite  wisdom  and 
power  displayed  in  the  great  law  of  progressive 

1  See  White's  "  Warfare  of  Science  with  Theology,"  Vol.  I.  pp. 
1 6,  126. 


AGNOSTICISM.  59 

development  of  organic  and  spiritual  life  from  the 
moneron  to  man.  Much  less  could  he  be  induced  to 
return  to  his  former  crude  and  anthropomorphic  con- 
ception of  God  as  a  being  of  limited  intelligence,  who 
is  obliged  to  supplement  his  work  from  time  to  time 
in  order  to  develop  new  ideas  or  to  provide  for  un- 
expected emergencies.  In  a  word,  the  intelligent 
Christian  of  to-day  has  learned  that  every  step  in 
the  progress  of  science,  instead  of  destroying  Chris- 
tianity or  weakening  its  vital  force,  serves  but  to 
confirm  its  essential  doctrines,  and  to  stimulate  to 
their  highest  expression  those  emotions  of  awe,  rev- 
erence, and  worship  which  are  the  common  attributes 
of  all  religions. 

7.  It  now  seems  evident  that  the  emotion  of 
religious  worship  possesses  a  profound  psychological 
and  scientific  significance.  It  is  instinctive  and  uni- 
versal. It  becomes  stronger  with  the  increasing 
intelligence  of  mankind,  keeping  pace  with  the  pro- 
gressive development  of  the  other  useful  faculties  of 
the  human  mind.  It  suffers  no  diminution  of  vital- 
ity by  reason  of  scientific  advancement.  It  finds  its 
highest  expression  in  the  most  enlightened  nations, 
where  it  is  the  life  of  every  benevolent  and  charitable 
enterprise,  —  of  every  institution  for  the  amelioration 
of  human  suffering  or  for  the  elevation  of  mankind. 
These  facts  alone  constitute  prima  facie  proof  that 
the  object  of  worship  is  a  living  reality.  If  it  were 
any  other  emotion  than  that  of  religious  worship,  no 
scientist  would  hesitate  to  declare  that  to  be  the  only 
tenable  conclusion.  Scientists  would  point  out  the 
impossibility  of  a  faculty  without  a  function,  or  of 
love  without  an  existing  object  of  love  capable  of 


60  THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

reciprocal  affection.1  And  they  would  be  logically 
and  scientifically  right;  for  these  are  psychological 
axioms.  If,  therefore,  the  love  of  God  is  not  an 
exception  to  the  rule,  that  instinctive,  omnipresent, 
universal  sentiment  which  has  existed  in  every  un- 
perverted  human  soul  since  the  dawn  of  creation  is 
an  inductive  verification  of  the  fundamental  tenet  of 
every  religion. 

If  experience  of  the  past  is  a  guide  to  the  future, 
we  are  now  in  possession  of  the  key  to  a  solution  of 
the  problem  of  the  reconciliation  of  science  with 
religion.  There  are  but  two  possible  ways  by  which 
this  desirable  consummation  can  be  reached ;  and  as 
either  one  of  these  methods  excludes  the  other,  there 
is  but  one. 

One  of  these  methods  is  for  inductive  science  to 
utterly  disprove  the  essential  doctrines  of  religion ; 
and  the  other  is  for  science  to  prove  the  essential 
truth  of  those  doctrines  beyond  the  possibility  of  a 
rational  doubt.  That  is  to  say,  the  proof  should  at 
least  be  so  conclusive  that  science  can  no  longer 
decide  against  the  claims  of  religion  on  a  priori 
grounds;  so  conclusive  that  the  burden  of  proof 
will  rest  upon  the  opponents  of  religion,  so  con- 
clusive that  no  other  hypothesis  will  account  for  all 
the  facts. 

As  we  have  seen,  scientists  have  already  tried  the 
first  method  and  failed.  Thus  far  every  induction 
of  modern  science  has  tended  to  confirm  the  essen- 
tial doctrines  of  the  Church.  Only  the  non-essential 
dogmas  of  theology  have  been  shaken.  It  is  reason- 

1  For  a  fuller  statement  of  this  argument,  see  "The  Law  of 
Psychic  Phenomena,"  page  408. 


AGNOSTICISM.  6 1 

able  to  suppose,  therefore,  that  further  inductions 
will  still  further  confirm  the  essentials.  This  sup- 
position is  strongly  reinforced  by  two  considera- 
tions. One  is  that  the  study  of  those  inductive 
sciences  that  directly  or  indirectly  concern  religion 
has  thus  far  been  largely  in  the  hands  of  those  who 
are  either  opposed  or  indifferent  to  the  claims  of 
religion.  The  other  is  that  the  friends  of  religion 
have  thus  far  given  very  inadequate  attention  to  the 
inductive  study  of  religion  itself,  and  much  less  of 
those  sciences  which  have  been  heralded  as  the  ruth- 
less destroyers  of  religion.  The  mistake  is  obvious; 
for  if  there  is  truth  in  religion  it  cannot  suffer  by 
being  brought  into  contact  with  any  truth  in  science. 
There  are  not  two  orders  of  truth  in  the  universe, 
one  antagonistic  to  the  other.  If,  therefore,  there  is 
truth  in  science  and  truth  in  religion,  the  more 
deeply  those  of  science  are  penetrated  the  more 
obvious  will  be  their  harmony  with  religion.  It  fol- 
lows that  if  there  is  truth  in  both,  science  will  yet 
furnish  the  data  for  the  inductive  study  of  religion. 
When  that  day  comes,  the  "  reconciliation  "  will  be 
inaugurated,  and  religion  and  science  will  read  the 
same  Bible  and  study  the  same  text-books  of  science, 
and  join,  in  a  scientific  and  practical  sense,  in  "  look- 
ing through  nature  up  to  nature's  God." 


CHAPTER  II. 

PSYCHOLOGY. 

General  Principles  of  Psychology  illustrated  by  Facts  of  Evolution. 
—  "  The  Law  of  Psychic  Phenomena."  —  Its  Hypothesis  sustained 
by  Facts  of  Evolution.  —  A  Summary  of  Fundamental  Principles. — 
The  Dual  Mind.  —  The  Law  of  Suggestion.  —  Objective  and  Sub- 
jective Minds  differentiated.  —  Their  Powers  and  their  Limita- 
tions.—Suggestion  defined.  —  Hypnotism.  —  Faculties  of  the 
Two  Minds  tabulated.  — An  Analysis  of  the  Objective  Mind.— 
Its  one  Faculty  Inductive  Reason.  —  Its  Defective  Memory. — 
Its  Dependence  upon  Cultivation  and  Refunctioning.  —  Its  Fac- 
ulties constitute  Pure  Intellect.  —  The  Mind  of  Reason  and 
Judgment. —  Its  Sphere  of  Activity  purely  Mundane.  —  It  is  the 
Product  of  Evolutionary  Development — It  perishes  with  the 
Body.  —  The  Subjective  Mind.  — It  is  the  Primary  Intelligence. — 
It  existed  Millions  of  Years  in  Animal  Life  before  a  Brain  was 
evolved.  —  It  is  the  Ultimate  Intelligence.  —  Synchronic  Action 
of  the  Two  Minds.  —  Genius.  —  The  Brain  not  the  Organ  of  the 
Subjective  Mind.  —  The  Dual  Mind  normally  controlled  by  the 
Objective  Mind.  —  The  Law  of  Suggestion  its  Instrument.  —  Vol- 
untary and  Involuntary  Functions.  —  One  by  the  Objective  Mind, 
the  Other  by  the  Subjective.  —  Exceptions  in  Deadly  Peril.  — 
The  Subjective  Mind  is  fitted  especially  for  a  Higher  Plane  of 
Existence. 

BEFORE  proceeding  with  the  consideration  of 
the  main  questions,  it  will  be  necessary  to  lay 
the  foundation  by  a  brief  statement  of  the  funda- 
mental principles  of  psychology,  from  which  some 
of  my  conclusions  will  be  derived.  It  will  be  seen, 
in  subsequent  chapters,  that  the  basic  facts  of  ele- 
mentary psychology  and  those  of  organic  evolution 
are  identical ;  but  we  will  first  consider  some  of  the 


PSYCHOLOGY.  63 

fundamental  principles  of  psychology  as  developed 
by  the  researches  of  modern  science. 

In  1893  I  published  my  first  work,  entitled  "  The 
Law  of  Psychic  Phenomena,"  in  which  I  tentatively 
formulated  a  working  hypothesis  for  the  systematic 
study  of  all  psychological,  or,  more  specifically, 
psychical  phenomena.  That  hypothesis  was  the 
result  of  more  than  thirty  years  of  systematic  search 
for  an  underlying  principle,  which  I  had  the  faith 
to  believe  must  exist,  and  which  would,  when  found, 
correlate  all  psychical  phenomena,  and  possibly  re- 
move them  all  from  the  domain  of  superstition. 
More  than  six  years  have  elapsed  since  the  publi- 
cation of  that  hypothesis,  and  as  no  fact  tending  to 
disprove  it  has  yet  been  brought  to  my  attention, 
I  feel  warranted  in  assuming  its  correctness,  and 
carrying  it  to  its  legitimate  conclusions  in  every 
field  of  psychological  inquiry. 

For  a  full  discussion  of  the  hypothesis  and  its 
application  to  psychological  phenomena  in  general, 
I  must  refer  the  reader  to  my  work  above  men- 
tioned. It  will  be  necessary,  however,  to  make  a 
brief  summary  of  it  here,  in  order  to  make  my 
meaning,  in  other  parts  of  this  book,  clear  to  those 
who  are  not  familiar  with  my  earlier  works.  The 
evidences  of  the  correctness  of  my  hypothesis,  which 
were  set  forth  in  my  two  former  works,1  will  not  be 
repeated  here,  except  where  it  becomes  necessary 
for  the  elucidation  of  the  text;  but  further  evi- 
dences will  be  adduced  which  will  in  themselves  be 
conclusive. 

1  "  The  Law  of  Psychic  Phenomena  "  and  "  A  Scientific  Demon- 
stration of  the  Future  Life." 


64          THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE  OF  MAN. 

The  first  proposition  of  my  hypothesis  may  be 
stated  as  follows :  — 

Man  is  endowed  with  a  dual  mind, 

Stated  thus  conservatively,  the  proposition  will  not 
be  seriously  questioned  by  any  student  of  psychol- 
ogy who  has  kept  pace  with  the  discoveries  of 
modern  science.  I  prefer,  however,  to  state  it  pro- 
visionally, thus : — 

Man  is  endowed  with  two  minds. 

I  prefer  this  method  of  stating  the  proposition  for 
two  reasons:  First,  because  it  appears  to  be  true. 
That  is  to  say,  everything  happens  just  as  though 
it  were  true;  and  this  is  all  that  any  scientist  pre- 
tends to  expect  in  a  working  hypothesis.  Secondly, 
I  prefer  it  because  it  admits  of  clearer  treatment, 
inasmuch  as  it  requires  less  of  roundabout  phrase- 
ology to  express  my  exact  meaning.  The  conclu- 
sions derivable  from  the  proposition  are,  however, 
precisely  the  same,  whichever  way  it  is  stated.  I 
adhere,  therefore,  to  my  usual  way  of  expressing  it, 
and  state,  as  my  first  proposition,  that  "  Man  is 
endowed  with  two  minds." 

I  distinguish  them  by  designating  one  as  the  objec- 
tive mind,  and  the  other  as  the  subjective  mind. 

The  objective  mind  is  that  of  ordinary,  waking 
consciousness.  Its  media  of  cognition  are  the  five 
physical  senses.  Its  highest  function  is  that  of 
reasoning.  It  is  specially  adapted  to  cope  with 
the  exigencies  of  a  physical  environment.  It  is 
the  function  of  the  brain ;  and  the  brain  is  the  ulti- 
mate product  of  organic  evolution.  This,  it  may 
be  remarked  parenthetically,  is  the  mind  with  which 
materialistic  scientists  deal  when  seeking  to  demon- 


PSYCHOLOGY.  65 

strata,  by  means  of  the  scalpel  and  other  appliances 
of  experimental  surgery,  that  even  the  soul  itself 
cannot  survive  the  onslaughts  of  medical  science. 

The  subjective  mind  is  that  intelligence  which  is 
most  familiarly  manifested  to  us  when  the  brain  is 
asleep,  or  its  action  is  otherwise  inhibited,  as  in 
dreams,  or  in  spontaneous  somnambulism,  or  in 
trance  or  trance-like  states  and  conditions,  as  in  in- 
duced somnambulism  or  hypnotism.  Any  one  who 
is  at  all  familiar  with  the  phenomena  resulting  from 
any  of  these  mental  conditions  is  aware  that  the 
most  wonderful  exhibitions  of  intellectual  activity 
and  power  often  result.  The  significant  feature  of 
the  phenomena  is  that,  other  things  being  equal, 
the  intellectual  powers  thus  displayed  bear  an  exact 
proportion  to  the  depth  of  the  trance  (to  use  a 
generic  term)  ;  or,  in  other  words,  the  more  com- 
pletely the  action  of  the  brain  is  inhibited  the  more 
phenomenal  will  be  the  manifestation  of  intellectual 
activity. 

Thus  far  I  have  not  travelled  outside  the  range  of 
common  observation  and  experience,  especially  of 
professional  men.  But  it  must  be  admitted  that 
these  facts  alone  make  a  prima  facie  showing  of 
duality  of  mind.  There  are  thousands  of  illustra- 
tions of  the  law  which  amount  to  demonstrative 
proof;  but  they  cannot  be  discussed  in  this  con- 
nection. It  may  be  remarked,  however,  that  mate- 
rialistic scientists  themselves  have  demonstrated, 
some  of  them  unwittingly,  that  the  brain  is  not  the 
organ  of  the  subjective  mind.1  In  later  chapters 

1  See  cases  cited  in  "A  Scientific  Demonstration  of  the  Future 
Life,"  chapter  xv. 


66  THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

of  this  book  it  will  be  shown  that  the  proposition 
is  demonstrated  by  the  facts  of  organic  and  mental 
evolution. 

The  second  proposition  is  this :  — 

The  subjective  mind  is  constantly  amenable  to  con- 
trol by  suggestion. 

The  meaning  of  this  is  that  the  subjective  mind 
involuntarily  accepts  as  veridical  the  ideas  or  state- 
ments of  fact  imparted  to  it.  These  statements  or 
ideas  may  be  imparted  orally  by  another  person,  in 
which  case  they  are  called  "  suggestions ;  "  or  they 
may  arise  from  the  education  of  the  individual;  in 
which  case  they  are  termed  "  auto-suggestions." 
There  are  no  exceptions  to  this  law,  although  there 
are  some  apparent  exceptions.  But  it  will  invari- 
ably be  found  that  the  apparent  exceptions  are  the 
clearest  possible  illustrations  of  the  absolute  uni- 
versality of  the  law.  A  common  illustration  of  the 
power  of  oral  suggestion  by  another  is  witnessed 
when  a  hypnotist  declares  to  his  endormed  subject 
that  he  is  a  third  person.  The  alacrity  with  which  the 
subject  accepts  the  suggestion,  and  the  marvellous 
fidelity  to  nature  with  which  he  will  personate  the 
character  suggested,  are  among  the  most  striking 
phenomena  of  hypnotism.  Again,  a  striking  illus- 
tration of  the  force  of  an  auto-suggestion,  arising  from 
the  education  and  belief  of  the  subject,  is  afforded 
by  so-called  spirit  mediums.  They  are  self-hypno- 
tized psychics,  and  the  suggestion  arising  from  their 
education  and  environment  is  that,  when  they  are  in 
the  subjective  state,  they  are  controlled  by  disem- 
bodied spirits.  This  suggestion  is  accepted,  of 
course,  and  the  supposed  spirit  is  personated  with 


PSYCHOLOGY. 


the  same  marvellous  fidelity  to  nature  that  charac- 
terizes the  performances  of  the  hypnotic  subject. 

A  corollary  of  the  law  of  suggestion  is  that  — 

The  subjective  mind  is  incapable  of  inductive 
reasoning. 

That  is  to  say,  it  is  incapable  of  instituting  an  in- 
dependent inquiry  by  the  process  of  collecting  facts 
for  the  purpose  of  reasoning  from  them  up  to  a 
general  principle  or  law.  Under  the  law  of  suggestion 
it  must  obtain  its  data,  or  premises,  from  the  ob- 
jective mind.  Besides,  it  possesses  a  higher  power 
than  that  of  induction,  —  a  shorter  road  to  essential 
truth,  namely,  the  power  or  faculty  of  intuitive  per- 
ception. This  subject  will  be  more  fully  treated 
hereinafter. 

The  following  table  exhibits  in  condensed  form  the 
results  of  a  complete  analysis  of  the  faculties  of  the 
two  minds: 


Objective  Mind. 

Subjective  Mind. 

Inductive  Reasoning. 
*i 
ju     Deductive  Reasoning 
^             (Imperfect). 

i 

2 

3 
4 

Instinct  or  Intuition. 
Controlled  by  Suggestion 

Deductive  Reasoning 
(Potentially  Perfect). 

Limitations. 

Memory  (Imperfect). 
c 

Pi     Brain  Memories  of  Emo- 
tional Experiences. 

5 
6 

Memory  (Potentially 
Perfect). 

Seat  of  the  Emotions. 

7 

Telepathic  Powers. 

8 

Telekinetic  Energy. 

68  THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

In  undertaking  an  analysis  of  the  faculties  of  the 
two  minds,  one  broad  and  pregnant  fact  stands  forth 
in  bold  relief,  and  that  is  that  the  only  faculty  which 
belongs  exclusively  to  the  objective  mind  is  that  of 
inductive  reasoning.  The  other  objective  faculties 
set  down  in  the  list  —  namely,  the  power  of  deductive 
reasoning  and  of  memory  —  are  the  necessary  con- 
comitants of  induction.  The  reason  is  obvious: 
deduction  is  a  necessary  concomitant  of  induction, 
for  the  objective  process  of  reasoning  consists  in  alter- 
nate induction  and  deduction ;  and  memory  is  an  in- 
dispensable concomitant  of  induction,  for  the  obvious 
reason  that  the  latter  presupposes  facts  to  reason 
from,  and  memory  is  the  storehouse  of  facts. 

It  will  be  observed  that  these  faculties,  the  con- 
comitants of  induction,  are  shared  by  the  subjective 
mind ;  the  difference  being  largely  of  degree.  That 
is  to  say,  they  are  inherent  and  perfect  in  the  sub- 
jective mind;  whereas  in  the  objective  mind  they 
are  exceedingly  imperfect,  and  depend  for  their 
degree  of  development,  primarily,  upon  laborious 
cultivation ;  and,  secondarily,  upon  constant  refunc- 
tioning  as  a  means  of  keeping  them  in  a  state  of 
efficiency. 

Other  faculties  belonging  primarily  to  the  subjective 
mind,  e.  g.,  the  emotions,  are  represented 'in  the  brain. 
Scientists  tell  us  that  every  faculty,  every  emotion, 
has  its  specialized  cortical  area.  This  is  doubtless 
true;  but  whether  they  will  ever  succeed  in  correctly 
locating  all  the  brain  centres  is  another  question.  Be 
that  as  it  may,  our  emotional  experiences,  as  well  as 
all  other  experiences  that  rise  above  the  threshold 
of  normal  consciousness,  are  registered  in  the  brain. 


PSYCHOLOGY.  69 

That  is  to  say,  each  conscious  experience  creates  new 
brain  cells,  which  in  the  aggregate  constitute  the 
brain  memories  of  our  experiences.  But  they  are 
only  memories.  They  are  simply  stored  up  facts  for 
the  use  of  the  inductive  powers.  They  complete  the 
objective  mental  organism.  The  seat  of  the  emotional 
faculties  is,  nevertheless,  in  the  subjective  mind, 
where,  as  we  shall  see  later  on,  it  was  located  aeons 
before  a  brain  was  evolved  in  the  process  of  organic 
evolution. 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  the  aggregate  of  the  faculties*" 
of  the  objective  mind  constitutes  pure  intellect.  They  \ 
are  simply  the  faculties  of  reason  and  judgment. 
They  constitute  the  judicial  tribunal  of  the  dual 
mind.  When  properly  cultivated  and  developed, 
they  sit  in  judgment  upon  every  act  of  our  earthly 
life  ;  they  regulate  every  emotion,  they  restrain  every 
passion  and  direct  it  into  legitimate  channels.  In 
short,  reason  is  at  once  the  tenure  by  which  man 
holds  his  free  moral  agency,  and  the  power  which 
enables  him  to  train  his  soul  for  weal  or  woe  in  this 
world  and  in  the  world  to  come. 

It  is  obvious  that  the  faculties  of  the  objective  mind 

,^-7« r. — — — —  i 

pertain  especially  and  exclusively/  to  a  physical 
environment.  It  was  evolved  in  response  to  physical 
necessities,  just  as  all  other  natural  weapons  of  offence 
and  defence  were  evolved  in  the  great  "  struggle  for 
life."  It  could  be  of  no  pqss^)le^adyantage  as  a_partpf 
the  mental  equipment  of  the  disembodied  souj^  which 
is  endowed  with  the  godlike  faculty  of  intuitive  per- 
ception of  that  fundamental  truth  which  the  objective 
mind  must  seek  by  the  slow  and  tedious  processes  of 
inductive  inquiry.  It  should  neither  surprise  nor 


70  THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

alarm  us,  therefore,  when  material  scientists  demon- 
strate the  fact  that  the  objective  mind,  being  the 
function  of  the  brain,  and  inherent  in  that  organ, 
necessarily  perishes  with  the  body. 

It  will,  in  fact,  become  apparent,  as  we  proceed, 
that  the  subjective  mind  is  the  primary  intelligence 
with  which  all  sentient  creatures  are  endowed ;  for  it 
existed  untold  millions  of  years  before  a  brain  was 
developed  in  the  process  of  organic  evolution.  It  is 
also  the  ultimate  intelligence  of  man,  for  it  survives 
the  death  of  the  body,1  and  the  consequent  extin- 
guishment of  the  objective  mind.  The  latter,  as 
before  remarked,  is  a  product  of  organic  evolution. 
Like  every  other  physical  weapon  of  offence  or  de- 
fence, it  was  evolved  in  response  to  the  necessities  of 
a  physical  environment.  It  is  specially  adapted  to 
such  an  environment,  and  to  no  other.  Its  powers  of 
inductive  reasoning  enable  man  to  grope  his  way 
through  the  mazes  of  an  environment  of  ignorance 
and  uncertainty,  and  gradually  to  distinguish  between 
the  true  and  the  false  in  the  realm  of  physical  life.  In 
that  life  it  is  the  most  potent  agency  known  to  man ; 
for  it  enables  him  gradually  to  acquire  a  knowledge  of 
some  of  the  laws  of  the  physical  universe,  and  thus 
ameliorate  his  physical  condition.  In  the  realm  of 
human  laws  and  human  government  it  also  finds 
ample  scope  for  all  the  powers  it  can  ever  possess. 
But  it  is  of  the  earth,  earthy. 

Before  closing  this  brief  summary  it  may  be  well 
to  remark  that,  whilst  the  two  minds  are  each  capa- 
ble of  independent  action,  they  often  act  in  perfect 
synchronism.  This  accounts  for  many  otherwise 
1  See  "  A  Scientific  Demonstration  of  the  Future  Life." 


PSYCHOLOGY.  /I 

inexplicable  phenomena,  those  of  genius  being  the 
most  conspicuous  examples.  The  specific  means  by 
which  this  synchronism  is  effected,  or  how  it  is  that 
the  subjective  mind  exercises  its  power  to  inhibit 
the  action  of  the  objective  mind,  is  not  at  present 
known.  We  can  only  be  certain  that  it  possesses 
that  power  by  observing  the  phenomena;  that  of 
hypnotism  alone  demonstrating  the  power  of  the 
subjective  mind  to  inhibit  the  action  of  the  brain. 
Cerebral  anatomists  have  not  yet  studied  the  subject 
from  the  standpoint  of  duality  of  mind;  and  hyp- 
notists are  not  agreed  upon  the  condition  of  the 
brain  of  a  hypnotized  subject.  The  old  school  of 
hypnotists  still  adhere  to  the  idea  that  the  brain 
must  necessarily  be  the  instrument  through  which 
all  intelligence  is  manifested.  As  long  as  scientists 
adhere  to  that  idea,  there  never  can  be  any  substan- 
tial progress  made  in  experimental  psychology ;  f or  ^ 
if  psychic  phenomena  teach  anything  worth  know-  \ 
ing,  it  is  that  the  brain  is  not  the  organ  of  the  i 
highest  intelligence  in  man,  — the  subjective  mind, 
the  organized  intelligence  of  the  human  soul.  I  ^ 
repeat,  therefore,  that  the  subjective  mind  is  the 
primary  intelligence  of  all  sentient  creatures,  and 
the  ultimate  intelligence  of  man;  whereas  the  brain 
is  a  specialized  physical  organ  of  which  the  objec- 
tive mind  is  the  function;  and  it  pertains  as  exclu- 
sively to  this  life  as  does  any  other  physical  organ 
or  function.  It  controls  the  subjective  mind  in  all 
the  ordinary  affairs  of  this  life  —  in  everything 
except  in  matters  of  conscience  and  the  primary 
instinct  of  self-preservation  —  because  it  is  specially 
adapted  to  the  exigencies  of  a  physical  environ-  , 


73  THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

merit.  This  it  does  by  virtue  of  the  law  of  sug- 
gestion. But  by  virtue  of  the  same  law  the  subjective 
mind  can  totally  inhibit  the  action  of  the  brain, 
just  as  it  can  inhibit  all  sensation  in  the  body. 
Just  how  this  inhibition  is  effected  it  is  not  my 
present  purpose  to  inquire.  I  leave  that  to  the 
cerebral  anatomists,  who  will  some  day  awaken  to 
the  realization  that  they  have  a  potent  intelligence 
to  deal  with  that  is  not  of  the  brain.  It  is  probable, 
however,  that  the  inhibition  is  effected  by  the 
simple  process  of  withdrawing  the  blood  from  the 
brain,  as  in  ordinary  sleep.  Be  that  as  it  may,  it  is 
certain  that  the  subjective  mind  not  only  possesses 
that  power,  but  it  can  assume  control  over  every 
nerve,  muscle,  and  fibre  of  the  body.  Ordinarily  it 
exercises  habitual  control  over  the  involuntary  func- 
tions only,  leaving  the  brain  in  control  of  the  volun- 
tary movements;  but  in  cases  of  imminent  and 
deadly  peril  it  inhibits  the  action  of  the  objective  or 
reasoning  mind,  and  seizes  upon  the  whole  nervous 
and  muscular  system.  In  such  cases  feats  of  almost 
superhuman  strength  and  agility  are  performed, 
pain  is  inhibited  and  fear  banished,  until  the  crisis 
is  past.1 

Little  need  be  said,  in  this  connection,  about  the 
faculties  of  the  subjective  mind,  as  they  will  be 
dealt  with  more  at  large  in  subsequent  chapters. 
Their  names  are  indicative  of  their  functions,  and 
all  that  needs  to  be  said  in  this  connection  is  that, 
unlike  the  objective  mind,  each  one  of  its  faculties 
and  powers  is  obviously  indispensable  to  the  com- 

*" 

1  See  "  The  Law  of  Psychic  Phenomena  "  for  a  full  discussion  of 
this  subject 


PSYCHOLOGY.  73 

plete  mental  equipment  of  a  disembodied  spirit. 
Not  one  necessary  faculty  is  lacking,  and  not  one 
faculty  is  superfluous,  and  not  one  faculty  belonging 
exclusively  to  the  subjective  mind  performs  any 
normal  function  in  the  physical  life. 


CHAPTER   III. 

PSYCHOLOGY  OF   MICRO-ORGANISMS. 

The  General  Theory  of  Evolution.  —  Too  well  established  to  require 
Full  Discussion.  —  The  Pedigree  of  Man  stamped  upon  his  Physi- 
cal Organism.  —  The  Three  Theories  of  Evolution  :  Materialistic, 
Agnostic,  and  Theistic. —  Darwin,  Romanes,  and  Hacckel  accepted 
as  Authorities  for  Facts,  not  for  Theories.  —  Facts  showing  Dual- 
ity of  Mind.  —  The  Brain  not  the  Organ  of  the  Subjective  Mind. 
— The  Genesis  of  the  Human  Soul.  —  The  very  Lowest  Form  of 
Animal  Life.  —  The  Moneron.  —  An  "Organism  without  Organs" 
endowed  with  a  Mind.  —  Quotations  from  Gates,  Binet,  and 
Others.  —  The  "  Psychic  Life  of  Micro-Organisms."  —  Their 
Habits  and  Mind  Capacity. —  Reflex  Action  discussed.  —  Not 
Adequate  to  account  for  Phenomena.  —  All  Vital  Phenomena  Pres- 
ent in  Non-Differentiated  Cells.  —  Wonderful  Instincts  of  the 
Difflugia.  —  Romanes  on  Instinct.  —  The  Subjective  Mind  of 
Man  and  Animals  Identical.  —  It  is  the  Mind  that  is  inherited 
from  Ancestry,  Near  and  Remote.  —  Instincts  increase  with  Intelli- 
gence.—  Primary  and  Secondary  Instincts.  —  New  Ones  devel- 
oped in  Game  Animals. —  Change  of  Environment  develops  New 
Dangers;  hence  New  or  Secondary  Instincts.  —  All  Instincts 
Inheritable. —  Subjective  Mind  of  Man  the  Sum  of  Ancestral 
Instincts.  —  It  antedated  Brain  by  many  Ages.  —  Brain,  therefore, 
not  the  Organ  of  Subjective  Mind. 

THE  general  theory  of  evolution  is  too  thor- 
oughly established  to  require  any  defence  at 
this  time;  and  it  is  too  well  understood  to  require 
a  treatise  on  the  subject  to  enable  my  readers  to 
understand  the  full  import  of  what  I  shall  have  to 
say  in  the  following  pages.  The  pedigree  of  physical 
man  is  too  plainly  stamped  upon  his  physical  struc- 
ture to  admit  of  a  rational  doubt  of  his  descent,  or 


PSYCHOLOGY  OF  MICRO-ORGANISMS.       75 

ascent,  from  the  lower  animals.  The  steps  of  that 
ascent  are  too  clearly  defined  in  the  structure  of  the 
lower  animals  to  admit  of  a  reasonable  doubt  that 
the  lowest  protoplasmic  unicellular  organism  known 
to  science  contained  the  promise  and  potentiality  of 
physical  manhood.  Nor  is  it,  in  my  opinion,  open 
to  a  rational  doubt  that  the  progressive  steps  required 
to  evolve  man  from  the  lowest  form  of  animal  life 
were  the  result  of  an  intelligent  plan,  and  not  of 
chance,  or  of  a  series  of  fortuitous  circumstances. 
There  are  three  well-defined  theories  of  evolution 
recognized  by  science  and  classified  as  follows:  — 

1.  Materialistic   evolution,   which   denies  every- 
thing but   matter  and   motion  in  the  evolutionary 
process. 

2.  Agnostic  evolution,  which    postulates  an  un- 
known and  unknowable  as  the  basis  and  explanation 
of  the  process. 

3.  Theistic  evolution,  which  assumes  a  God  back 
of  all,  working  out  results  along  the  unalterable  line 
of  natural  law,  and  by  physical  forces  exclusively. 

There  is  another  theory  held  by  some,  called  the 
development  theory,  which  assumes  the  orderly 
unfolding  of  the  system  of  the  universe  under  divine 
guidance,  according  to  a  divine  plan,  and  with 
various  divine  interpositions  or  special  creations. 

These  are  Standard  Dictionary  definitions,  but 
they  are  sufficiently  explicit  for  my  present  pur- 
pose. They  are  mentioned  for  the  purpose  of  show- 
ing that  the  theory  of  evolution  which  I  propose  to 
outline  differs  essentially  from  any  of  the  recognized 
classifications.  It  comes  nearer  to  the  definition 
above  given  of  "theistic  evolution,"  but  differs  from 


76  THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

that  in  not  ascribing  everything  to  physical  forces 
exclusively. 

My  hypothesis  pertains  exclusively  to  the  evolu- 
tion of  animal  life,  and  the  concomitant  psychologi- 
cal development,  from  the  monera  to  man.  It 
assumes  a  God  back  of  all,  working  out  results  along 
the  unalterable  line  of  natural  law,  but  largely  by 
mental  or  spiritual  forces. 

I  accept  the  general  theory  of  organic  evolution, 
in  all  its  fulness,  as  laid  down  by  materialistic 
scientists,  such  as  Darwin,  Haeckel,  Romanes,  and 
other  great  lights;  but  I  shall  use  their  facts,  and 
to  some  extent  their  arguments,  to  demonstrate  my 
psychological  theories.  That  is  to  say,  I  shall 
attempt  to  show  that  their  facts  and  their  argu- 
ments, carried  to  their  legitimate  conclusions, 
demonstrate  much  more  than  is  dreamed  of  in  their 
philosophy;  that  their  facts  prove  just  the  opposite 
to  their  materialistic  conclusions,  and  that,  instead 
of  eliminating  God  from  the  universe,  or  relegating 
him  to  the  domain  of  the  "utterly"  unknowable, 
they  substantiate  the  essential  doctrines  of  Chris- 
tianity relating  to  his  attributes  and  his  kinship  to 
humanity 

The  first  in  order  for  consideration  will  be  the 
evidences  which  the  facts  of  evolution  afford,  (i)  of 
duality  of  mind,  (2)  that  the  brain  is  not  the  organ 
of  the  subjective  mind,  and  (3)  of  the  genesis  of  the 
human  soul. 

We  will  begin  with  the  first  appearance  of  animal 
life  upon  this  planet.  I  shall  first  quote  from 
Haeckel,  —  first,  because  he  is  a  recognized  authority 
among  material  scientists;  secondly,  because  he  is 


PSYCHOLOGY  OF  MICRO-ORGANISMS.       77 

in  some  respects  superior  to  Darwin,  having  written 
later  than  that  great  pioneer  in  the  science;  thirdly, 
because  Darwin,  in  later  editions  of  his  works, 
indorses  Haeckel;  and  fourthly,  because  the  latter 
distinctly  repudiates  Christianity  and  the  doctrine 
of  a  future  life.  I  cannot,  therefore,  be  accused  of 
selecting  my  authorities  from  among  those  who 
would  indorse  my  views.  He  says :  — 

"  If  we  would  now  undertake  the  difficult  attempt  to 
discover  the  phylogenetic  course  of  evolution  of  these 
twenty-two  human  ancestral  stages  from  the  very  com- 
mencement of  life,  and  if  we  venture  to  lift  the  dark  veil 
which  covers  the  oldest  secrets  of  the  organic  history  of 
the  earth,  we  must  undoubtedly  seek  the  first  beginning 
of  life  among  those  wonderful  living  beings  which,  under 
the  name  of  monera,  we  have  already  frequently  pointed 
out  as  the  simplest  known  organisms.  They  are,  at  the 
same  time,  the  simplest  conceivable  organisms;  for  then- 
entire  body,  in  its  fully  developed  and  freely  moving 
condition,  consists  merely  of  a  small  piece  of  structure- 
less primitive  slime  or  plasson,  of  a  small  fragment  of  that 
extraordinarily  important  nitrogenous  carbon  compound, 
which  is  now  universally  esteemed  the  most  important 
material  substratum  of  all  the  active  phenomena  of  life."  1 

Again,  he  says :  — 

"The  monera  are  the  simplest  permanent  cytods. 
Their  entire  body  consists  of  merely  soft,  structureless 
plasson.  However  thoroughly  we  examine  them  with  the 
help  of  the  most  delicate  reagents  and  the  strongest  optical 
instruments,  we  yet  find  that  all  the  parts  are  completely 
homogeneous.  These  monera  are,  therefore,  in  the  strict- 
1  The  Evolution  of  Man,  vol.  ii.  p.  43,  Appletons'  ed.,  1896. 


?8  THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN, 

est  sense  of  the  word,  '  organisms  without  organs ; '  or 
even  in  a  strictly  philosophical  sense,  they  might  not  even 
be  called  organisms,  since  they  possess  no  organs,  since 
they  are  not  composed  of  various  particles.  They  can 
only  be  called  organisms,  in  so  far  as  they  are  capable  of 
exercising  the  organic  phenomena  of  life,  of  nutrition, 
reproduction,  sensation,  and  movement."  l 

Here,  then,  we  have  the  very  lowest  form  of  animal 
life,  —  "  an  organism  without  organs ;  "  a  simple 
mass  of  plasson,  minus  even  the  nucleus  which  be- 
longs to  the  true  cell,  and  therefore  absolutely  with- 
out physical  organs.  And  yet  it  is  endowed  with 
a  mind,  —  an  organized  intelligence.  The  fact  that 
it  adapts  means  to  ends  constitutes  indubitable  evi- 
dence that  it  has  carried  on  a  mental  process.  A 
living  creature  is  a  mind  organism ;  for  it  is  mind, 
and  mind  alone,  that  distinguishes  the  animate  from 
the  inanimate.  A  cell  is  a  living  creature.  A  cell, 
therefore,  possesses  a  mind. 

"Unicellular  organisms,"  says  Dr.  Gates,  "possess  all  the 
different  forms  of  activity  to  be  found  in  the  higher  animals. 
Thus  the  simplest  cell  can  transform  food  into  tissue  and 
other  metabolic  products ;  and  this  is  the  basis  of  all  the 
nutritive  activities  and  processes  of  the  higher  animals ;  the 
cell  can  move  parts  of  itself  and  is  capable  of  locomotion ; 
and  this  is  the  basis  of  all  movement  in  the  higher  animals 
brought  about  by  bones  and  muscles.  The  cell  can  feel  a 
stimulus  and  respond,  and  this  is  the  basis  of  the  sensory 
faculties  of  the  higher  animals  ;  the  cell  can  reproduce  itself 
by  segmentation,  and  this  is  the  basis  of  reproduction  in 
the  higher  animals ;  the  cell  on  dividing  inherits  the  actual 

1  Op.  cit.,  p.  47. 


PSYCHOLOGY  OF  MICRO-ORGANISMS.       ?$ 

qualities  of  its  parent  mass,  and  this  is  the  basis  of  heredity ; 
in  short,  the  cell  contains,  in  simplest  form,  all  of  the 
activities  to  be  found  in  man."  l 

Binet,  in  his  great  work,2  corroborates  all  that  Dr. 
Gates  alleges,  and  demonstrates  the  mistake  of  those 
scientists  who  hold  that  all  acts  of  micro-organisms 
are  due  to  "  irritability,"  or  reflex  action.  One  of 
the  many  phenomena  mentioned  to  show  the  com- 
plexity of  the  psychic  life  of  micro-organisms  is  "  the 
existence  of  the  power  of  selection,  exercised  either 
in  the  search  for  food,  or  in  the  manoeuvres  attending 
conjugation.  The  act  of  selection  is  a  capital 
phenomenon ;  we  may  take  it  as  the  characteristic 
feature  of  functions  pertaining  to  the  nervous  system. 
As  Romanes  has  indeed  observed,  the  power  of 
choice  may  be  regarded  as  the  criterion  of  psychical 
faculties." 

In  his  preface  to  the  American  edition  of  his  work, 
Binet  remarks:  — 

"  If  the  existence  of  psychological  phenomena  in  lower 
organisms  is  denied,  it  will  be  necessary  to  assume  that 
these  phenomena  can  be  superadded  in  the  course  of  evolu- 
tion, in  proportion  as  an  organism  grows  more  and  more 
complex.  Nothing  could  be  more  inconsistent  with  the 
teachings  of  general  physiology,  which  shows  us  that  all  vital 
phenomena  are  previously  presents  non-differentiated  cells" 
(The  italics  are  mine.) 

Binet  also  quotes  a  very  interesting  statement  of 
the  observations  of  Verworn,  which  reveal  the  exist- 

1  See  "  Therapist,"  December,  1895. 

2  The  Psychic  Life  of  Micro-Organisms,  Open  Court  Pub.  Co., 
Chicago. 


80  THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

ence  of  curious  instincts  among  the  Rhizopods.  The 
Difflifgui  ampulla,  which  inhabits  a  shell  formed  of 
particles  of  sand,  emits  long  pseudopodia  which 
search  at  the  bottom  of  the  water  for  the  materials 
necessary  to  construct  a  new  case  for  the  filial  or- 
ganism to  which  it  gives  birth  by  division.  The 
pseudopod,  after  having  touched  a  particle  of  sand, 
contracts,  and  the  grain  of  sand,  adhering  to  the 
pseudopod,  is  seen  to  pass  into  the  body  of  the  ani- 
mal. Verworn,  instead  of  grains  of  sand,  placed 
small  fragments  of  colored  glass  about  the  animal ; 
some  time  afterwards,  he  noticed  a  heap  of  these 
fragments  on  the  bottom  of  the  shell.  He  then  saw 
a  bunch  of  protoplasm  issue  from  the  shell,  repre- 
senting the  new  Difflugia  produced  by  division. 
Thereupon  the  materials  collected  by  the  mother- 
organism —  the  fragments  of  colored  glass  —  came 
forth  from  the  shell  and  enveloped  the  body  of  the 
new  individual  in  a  sheath  similar  to  that  encasing 
the  mother.  These  fragments  of  glass,  loosely  inter- 
joined  at  first,  were  now  cemented  together  by  a 
substance  secreted  by  the  body  of  the  animal. 

"  Two  facts,"  continues  Binet,  "  are  to  be  remarked  in 
this  observation  :  first,  the  act  whereby  the  Difflugia  col- 
lects the  materials  for  providing  the  young  individual  with 
a  case,  is  an  act  of  preadaptation  to  an  end  not  present, 
but  remote ;  this  act,  therefore,  has  all  the  marks  of  an 
instinct.  Further,  the  instinct  of  the  Difflugia  exhibits 
great  precision  ;  for  the  Difflugia  not  only  knows  how  to 
distinguish,  at  the  bottom  of  the  water,  the  materials  avail- 
able for  its  purpose,  but  it  takes  only  the  quantity  of 
material  necessary  to  enable  the  young  individual  to  acquire 
a  well-built  case ;  there  is  never  an  excess. 


PSYCHOLOGY  OF  MICRO-ORGANISMS.       8l 

"  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  Difflugia  does  not  act 
differently  from  animals  possessing  more  highly  complicated 
organizations  and  endowed  with  differentiated  nervous 
systems,  as,  for  instance,  the  larvae  of  Phryganids  which 
form  their  sheaths  from  shells,  grains  of  sand,  or  minute 
slivers." 1 

I  have  made  these  quotations,  almost  at  random, 
not  to  exhibit  any  special  order  of  development,  but 
to  show  that  in  the  very  lowest  form  of  animal  life  — 
in  the  simplest  organism  known  to  science,  from 
which  man  can  trace  his  ancestry,  there  exists  a 
mind,  —  a  mind  of  most  wonderful  complexity,  and 
possessing  transcendent  powers,  —  an  instinctive 
mind.  This  is  the  important  point  to  be  observed. 
It  is  an  instinctive  mind,  as  distinguished  from  merely 
reflex  action.  Romanes,  in  his  great  work,  "  Mind 
in  the  Lower  Animals,"  makes  this  clear  distinction 
between  instinct  and  reflex  action :  — 

"  The  most  important  point  to  observe  in  the  first  in- 
stance is  that  instinct  involves  mental  operations ;  for  this 
is  the  only  point  that  serves  to  distinguish  instinctive  from 
reflex  action."  2 

I  have  been  thus  particular  in  establishing  the  fact 
that  a  mental  organism  exists  in  the  very  lowest 
forms  of  animal  life,  for  the  reason  that  I  propose 
to  show  that  this  mental  organism  is  the  embryonal 
archetype  of  the  subjective  mind  in  man.  That  is 
to  say,  the  subjective  mind  of  man  is  a  direct  inher- 
itance from  that  of  the  lowest  unicellular  organism, 

1  Op.  cit,  Preface. 

2  This  observation  is  repeated  in  his  "  Mental  Evolution  in  Ani- 
mals," which  see,  p.  160. 

6 


82  THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

without  a  change  in  its  essential  characteristics  save 
that  which  is  incident  to  development. 

The  subjective  mind  of  man,  therefore,  is  identical 
with  the  instinctive  intelligence  of  animals,  differing 
only  in  degree  of  development  and  complexity  of 
organism.  I  wish  this  fact  to  be  distinctly  borne  in 
mind,  for  not  only  is  it  the  salient  fact  in  the  history 
of  organic  and  mental  evolution,  from  the  moneron 
to  man,  but  the  inevitable  conclusions  derivable 
therefrom  are  literally  of  infinite  importance. 

The  steps  and  processes  of  this  development  are 
clearly  set  forth  in  the  works  of  such  men  as  Dar- 
win, Romanes,  and  other  great  biologists,  to  whose 
works  the  reader  is  referred  for  a  detailed  treatment 
of  the  subject.  It  may  be  said  in  general  terms, 
however,  that  the  instinctive  intelligence  of  sentient 
creatures  increases  in  range  and  complexity  in  exact 
proportion  to  the  evolutionary  development  of  ani- 
mal life  from  the  lowest  to  the  highest  physical 
organism.  That  is  to  say,  at  each  upward  step  in 
the  phylogenetic  series,  new  instincts  are  developed 
to  provide  for  the  exigencies  of  changed  environ- 
mental relationships.  The  process  is  easy  to  under- 
stand. 

Instincts  are  divided  by  Romanes  into  two  classes, 
namely,  primary  and  secondary. 

Primary  instincts  are  those  natural,  spontaneous 
impulses  that  move  animals,  without  reasoning,  ex- 
perience, or  the  intervention  of  objective  intelligence, 
toward  the  actions  that  are  essential  to  their  exist- 
ence, preservation,  and  development. 

Secondary  instincts  are  impulses  of  like  character 
to  the  above,  but  were  originally  intelligent,  and  by 


PSYCHOLOGY  OF  MICRO-ORGANISMS.       83 

frequent  repetition  have  become  automatic.  Such 
actions,  after  being  performed  for  a  few  generations, 
become  as  firmly  established  as  the  primary  instincts, 
and  are  then  inherited  by  succeeding  generations. 

These  added  or  secondary  instincts  are  the  results 
of  changed  environment.  That  is  to  say,  whenever 
new  dangers  are  to  be  guarded  against,  or  new  wants 
are  to  be  supplied,  new  instincts  are  developed. 
Thus,  as  Romanes  points  out,  "  the  development  of 
firearms,  together  with  the  development  of  sporting 
interests,  has  given  game  of  all  kinds  an  instinctive 
knowledge  of  what  constitutes  '  safe  distance,'  as 
every  sportsman  can  testify."  l  Romanes  then  quotes 
from  a  paper  on  "  Hereditary  Instinct "  by  Andrew 
Knight,  as  follows:  — 

"  I  have  witnessed,  within  the  period  above  mentioned, 
of  nearly  sixty  years,  a  very  great  change  in  the  habits  of 
the  woodcock.  In  the  first  part  of  that  time,  when  it  had 
recently  arrived  in  the  autumn  it  was  very  tame  ;  it  usually 
chuckled  when  disturbed,  and  took  only  a  very  short  flight. 
It  is  now,  and  has  been  during  many  years,  comparatively 
a  very  wild  bird,  which  generally  rises  in  silence,  and  takes 
a  comparatively  long  flight,  excited,  I  conceive,  by  increased 
hereditary  fear  of  man."  2 

It  has  also  been  noted  by  sportsmen  that  game 
animals  keep  pace  with  the  increased  range  and  effec- 
tiveness of  modern  firearms.  What  was  a  safe  distance 
fifty  years  ago  is  within  easy  range  of  modern  weapons ; 
but  game  animals  have  already  learned  the  limits  of 

1  Mental  Evolution  in  Animals,  p.  197. 
3  Phil.  Trans.,  1837,  p.  369. 


84  THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE    OF  MAN. 

the  new  range,  and  consequently  "  make  themselves 
scarce  "  within  its  radius. 

These  are  but  samples  of  the  vast  number  of  illus- 
trations of  the  principle  involved ;  but  they  serve  to 
show  how  new  instincts  are  acquired  and  old  ones 
modified  with  every  change  of  environment,  and  with 
every  step  forward  in  the  process  of  evolutionary 
development  of  animal  life  and  intelligence.  It  is 
easy  to  see  that,  in  the  course  of  that  development 
from  the  moneron  to  man,  the  mental  organism  thus 
developed  must  have  become  wonderfully  complex, 
even  before  man  appeared  upon  the  stage  of  being. 
And  when  we  remember  that  man  inherited  this  al- 
ready complex  mental  organism,  and  has  since  con- 
tinued to  develop  it  in  a  constantly  increasing  ratio, 
it  is  easy  to  understand  that  a  godlike  mental  organ- 
ism necessarily  resulted;  and  this  we  find  in  the 
subjective  mind  of  man. 

Now,  there  are  two  things  which  must  be  distinctly 
borne  in  mind  in  this  connection :  — 

The  first  is  that  all  instincts  are  transmitted  by  in- 
heritance from  one  generation  to  another  from  the 
lowest  to  the  highest  physical  and  mental  organism. 
This  is  the  shibboleth  of  science.  This  is  especially 
insisted  upon  by  those  scientists  who  imagine  that  a 
demonstration  of  its  truth  eliminates  God  from  the 
universe.  I  accept  their  premises,  but  not  their  con- 
clusions, as  I  shall  show  hereinafter.  I  accept  their 
premises  because  they  are  demonstrably  true.  I 
reject  their  conclusions  because  they  are  demon- 
strably untrue. 

It  is  true  that  instincts  are  transmitted  by  inherit- 
ance; and  as  Darwin,  Romanes,  and  others  have 


PSYCHOLOGY  OF  MICRO-ORGANISMS.       8$ 

clearly  shown,  it  is  true  of  both  primary  and  second- 
ary instincts.     Were  it  not  true  of  primary  instincts, 
animal    life   would    have   become    extinct    before    it 
passed   beyond   the  primordial  germ   in  the   line   of 
development.     Were  it  not  true  of  secondary  instincts, 
progressive  development  would  have  been  confined 
within  very  narrow  limits;   for  it  was  by  that  means 
that  the  species  was  enabled  to  profit  by  the  new 
experiences  of  individuals,  incident  to  changing  envi- 
ronment.     Hence  it  is  that  the  subjective  mind  of  j 
man  represents  the  sum  of  all  the  useful  instinctive  / 
knowledge   possessed   by  its  ancestry,  near  and  re- ( 
mote,  beginning  with  the  lowest  unicellular  organism/ 
known  to  science. 

The  second  proposition  which  I  desire  my  readers 
to  bear  in  mind  is  that  this  mental  organism  began 
its  earthly  career  millions  of  years  before  a  brain  was 
evolved  in  the  process  of  organic  evolution.  In  fact, 
according  to  the  best  authorities,  the  archilithic 
period,  or  primordial  epoch,  which  was  the  age  of| 
skull-less  animals,  consumed  considerably  more  than 
one-half  of  all  the  years  that  have  elapsed  since  the 
advent  of  organic  life  on  this  planet.  Thus,  Haeckel 1 
estimates  the  comparative  length  of  the  archilithic 
epoch  as  53.6  per  cent  of  the  whole.  During  this 
period  the  lowest  vertebrates  appeared,  but  a  brain 
was  not  evolved  until  a  later  epoch. 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  the  primary  intelligence 
of  sentient  life,  the  instinctive  mind,  the  mental  organ- 
ism that  has  since  developed  into  that  godlike  intel- 
ligence which  we  now  recognize  as  the  subjective 
mind  of  man,  existed  and  performed  its  functions 
1  The  Evolution  of  Man,  vol.  ii.  pp.  11-18. 


86  THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

with  unerring  prescience,  without  the  aid  of  a  brain 
structure,  for  untold  millions  of  years.  We  have, 
therefore,  the  strongest  possible  a  priori  grounds  for 
assuming  that  the  brain  is  not  now,  and  never  has 
been,  the  organ  of  the  subjective  mind ;  and  if  the 
a  posteriori  proofs  all  conspire  to  confirm  that  hy- 
pothesis, we  can  safely  draw  the  most  momentous 
conclusions  therefrom. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

EVOLUTION  AND  THE  SUBJECTIVE  MIND. 

The  Brain  not  the  Organ  of  the  Subjective  Mind.  —  Proven  by  its 
Identity  with  the  Instinctive  Minds  of  Animals.  —  The  Latter 
proven  by  its  Continuity  from  Lowest  Organisms  up  to  Man.  — 
Continuity  proven  by  Comparative  Analysis  of  Faculties  and 
Functions.  —  Instinct  in  Lower  Animals  Identical  with  Intuition 
in  Man.  —  Its  Definition.  —  The  Deductive  Faculty  potentially  Per- 
fect in  Subjective  Minds  of  Animals  as  well  as  Men.  —  The  Emo- 
tions are  Faculties  of  the  Subjective  Minds  of  Men  and  Animals 
alike.  —  They  antedated  the  Brain.  —  Objective  Mind  is  Emotion- 
less. —  Induction  and  Concomitant  Memories,  its  only  Functions 
or  Faculties.  —  Telepathy  a  Power  of  the  Subjective  Mind. — 
It  exists  potentially  in  Animals.  —  Telekinesis  a  Subjective 
Power.  —  It  is  the  Power  that  enabled  Jesus  and  Peter  to  walk 
upon  the  Water.  —  It  reappears  in  so-called  Spirit  Phenomena.  — 
The  Mysterious  Motility  of  the  Polycystids.  —  Science  cannot 
explain  it  under  Physical  Laws.  —  All  Subjective  Powers  derived 
from  Lower  Animals,  beginning  with  the  Unicellular  Organisms. 
—  Further  Proof  by  Experimental  Surgery.  —  Scientific  Search 
for  a  Soul  with  a  Scalpel.  —  Materialistic  Arguments  from  Cere- 
bral Anatomy  disproved.  —  They  have  searched  in  the  Wrong 
Place  for  the  Soul.  —  The  Soul  is  Immanent  in  the  Body,  not 
Inherent  in  it.  —  Proofs  from  Voluntary  and  Involuntary  Muscles 
and  Functions. — Time  Reaction  Different  in  the  Two  Minds. — 
Phenomena  when  Death  approaches.  —  Subjective  Mind  grows 
Stronger  as  Objective  Mind  grows  Weaker.  —  Strongest  Manifes- 
tations in  the  Hour  of  Death,  after  Brain  has  ceased  to  act.  — 
Death-Bed  Scene  when  Governor  Matthews  passed  away.  — 
The  Physician's  Testimony.  —  The  Wonderful  Power  of  Sugges- 
tion then  exhibited.  —  Proofs  from  Experimental  Hypnotism.  — 
The  Phenomena  of  Amnesia  a  Crucial  Test.  —  Spontaneous 
Somnambulism.  —  Proofs  from  Phenomena  of  Dreams. 

T>EFORE  proceeding  to  recite  the  facts  demon- 
••-*  strative  of  the  proposition  that  the  brain  is  not 
the  organ  of  the  subjective  mind,  we  must  first  show 


88  THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

that  the  instinctive  mind  of  the  lower  animals  is 
identical  with  the  subjective  mind  of  man.  The 
fact  of  continuity  alone,  if  it  can  be  shown  with 
reasonable  certainty,  is  presumptive  evidence  of  the 
truth  of  the  proposition ;  for  it  would  require  a  vio- 
lent stretch  of  the  imagination  to  conceive  the  idea 
that  an  organized  intelligence,  once  located  in  a 
physical  structure  and  performing  its  functions  inde- 
pendently of  specialized  physical  organs,  could  sud- 
denly change  its  method  and  organ  of  manifestation. 
At  least  it  would  require  the  strongest  kind  of  affirm- 
ative evidence  to  substantiate  the  proposition. 

Referring  now  to  the  table  in  Chapter  II.,  in  which 
the  faculties  of  the  two  minds  are  differentiated,  it  will 
be  seen  that  that  of  intuitive  perception  heads  the 
list  of  faculties  of  the  subjective  mind.  I  think  no 
one  will  dispute  the  proposition  that  this  faculty  in 
man  is  identical  with  what  is  known  in  general  terms 
as  instinct  in  the  lower  animals.  It  performs  the 
same  functions  in  both,  the  difference  being  one  of 
degree  and  not  of  kind ;  and  they  may,  therefore, 
be  defined  in  the  same  terms.  I  define  the  faculty 
as  follows :  — 

*    Instinct,  or  mtuition,  is  the  faculty  possessed  by 

'  each  sentient  being,  in  proportion  to  its  development 

(  and   in    harmony  with  its   environment,  to  perceive 

or  apprehend,  antecedent  to  and  independently  of 

reason,   experience,    or    instruction,    those    laws    of 

(  nature  which  pertain  to  the  well-being  of  the  individ- 

^ual  and  of  the  species  to  which  it  belongs. 

Instinct  in  the  lower  animals,  as  every  one  is  aware, 
is  chiefly  concerned  in  the  preservation  of  the  life  of 
the  individual  and  the  promotion  of  the  welfare  of  the 


EVOLUTION  AND   THE  SUBJECTIVE  MIND.    89 


species;,-,  and  as  I  shall  endeavor  to  show  later  on, 
the  higher  manifestation  of  the  same  faculty  in  man 
is  promotive  of  the  same  general  object,  the  differ- 
ence consisting  in  its  higher  aims  and  ever-broaden- 
ing  altruism.      For   the   present   it   is    sufficient   to 
remark  that  the  objective  mind  possesses  no  faculty 
akin  to  instinct  or  intuition.     The  faculty  of  induc-1 
tive  reasoning,  as  we  have  already  seen,  is  the  only  , 
distinctive  faculty  possessed  by  the  objective  mind,  , 
and  that  is  the  very  opposite  of  intuition.  - 

The  next  faculty  on  the  list  is  that  of  deduction, 
which  is  potentially  perfect  in  the  subjective  mind. 
Inerrant  deduction  is  the  instinctive  logic  of  the  sub- 
jective mind  ;  and  this  is  as  true  of  the  lower  animals 
as  it  is  of  man.  It  is  the  concomitant  of  intuition  in 
the  subjective  mind,  and  of  induction  in  the  objective 
mind.  That  is  to  say,  both  induction  and  intuition 
deal  with  general  laws;  the  one  by  the  slow  and 
laborious  process  of  gathering  facts  of  experience, 
and  the  other  by  immediate  perception,  antecedent 
to  experience  and  independent  of  reason.  Deduc- 
tion is  the  faculty  which  reasons  from  general  laws  or 
principles  to  all  legitimate  conclusions;  and  it  is, 
therefore,  the  concomitant  of  both  induction  and 
intuition.  Induction,  depending  as  it  does  upon 
laborious  cultivation  for  whatever  degree  of  effi- 
ciency it  may  possess,  is  necessarily  imperfect  ;  and 
hence  the  imperfection  of  its  concomitant  faculty, 
deduction.  On  the  other  hand,  instinct,  or  intuition, 
is  potentially  perfect,  and  it  is,  moreover,  inherent  in 
the  subjective  mind  ;  and  hence  the  potential  perfec- 
tion of  the  deductive  powers  of  the  subjective  mind 
in  every  phase  of  its  activity,  from  the  lowest  to  the 


90  THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

highest  mental  organism,  especially  when  the  activity 
of  the  brain  is  totally  inhibited. 

The  next  on  the  list  are  the  Demotions,  These 
obviously  belong  wholly  to  the  subjective  mind,  since 
they  are  a  direct  inheritance  from  the  lower  animals, 
including,  of  course,  all  that  existed  before  a  brain 
was  evolved/*  It  is  almost  superfluous  to  add,  in  this 
connection,  that  the  "  animal  passions  and  propen- 
sities "  thus  inherited,  when  regulated,  elevated,  and 
purified  by  reason  and  conscience,  contain  the  prom- 
ise and  potency  of  all  that  is  capable  of  imparting 
happiness  and  joy  to  the  soul  of  man  in  this  world  or 
the  world  to  come.  There  is  no  valid  reason  for  sup- 
posing that  the  objective  mind  experiences  any  emo- 
tion whatever.  Scientists  tell  us  that  every  emotion, 
as  well  as  every  faculty,  has  its  special  cortical  area 
or  compartment.  This  may  be,  and  doubtless  is, 
true;  but  it  does  not  follow  that  the  emotions,  as 
such,  are  felt  by  the  objective  mind.  On  the  con- 
trary, there  is  every  reason  to  suppose  that  the  brain. 
merely  registers  the  conscious  emotional  experiences' 
of_the^  subjective  mind.  That  is  to  say,  new  brain 
cells  are  created  for  every  conscious  experience  of 
the  individual,  emotional  or  otherwise,  and  these  cells 
are  the  receptacles  of  brain  memories.  But  they  are 
only  memories.  The  seat  of  the  emotions  is,  never- 
theless, in  the  subjective  mind,  where  it  was  located 
aeons  before  a  braiffwas  developed  in  the  process  of 
organic  evolution. 

The  next  on  the  list  is  telepathy.  There  are  many 
who  hold  that  telepathy  is  largely  employed  by 
animals  to  supply  their  deficiencies  in  oral  means 
of  communication.  I  have  not  sufficiently  investi- 


EVOLUTION  AND   THE  SUBJECTIVE  MIND.    91 

gated  this  question  to  warrant  me  in  expressing  a 
decided  opinion  whether  animals  communicate  with 
each  other  by  that  means  or  not.  But  I  have  con-", 
ducted  a  series  of  experiments  which  convince  me  , 
that,  under  favo/able  conditions,  man  may  influence 
certain  domestic  animals  telepathically  in  a  very 
marked  degree.  Be  that  as  it  may,  certain  it  is 
that  telepathy  is  a  faculty  of  the  subjective  mind 
of  man,  and  the  power  must  therefore  have  existed, 
potentially,  in  that  of  his  ancestry,  near  and  remote. 
It  is  also  certain  that  the  objective  mind  of  man 
possesses  no  power  akin  to  telepathy. 

Of  telekinetic  energy  little  need  be  said  in  this 
immediate  connection.  It  is  the  power  of  produc- 
ing motion  in  ponderable  bodies  without  physical 
contact  or  connection.  It  is  that  power  which  is 
sometimes  manifested  in  so-called  spirit  phenomena, 
such  as  table-lifting,  rapping,  slate-writing,  et  hoc 
genus  omne.  It  is  that  power  which  is  sometimes 
manifested  in  the  levitation  of  the  body  of  the 
psychic.  It  is  that  power  which  enabled  Jesus 
and  Peter  to  walk  upon  the  water.  It  is  manifestly 
a  power  of  the  subjective  mind,  for  no  such  energy 
has  ever  been  manifested  in  the  objective  mind. 
There  is  no  evidence  clearly  demonstrative  that  it 
is  possessed  by  any  of  the  animal  kingdom  lower 
than  man ;  although  certain  animals  possess  a  mys- 
terious energy  that  material  science  has  never  been 
able  to  account  for.  For  instance,  what  is  that 
wonderful  energy  that  enables  certain  birds  to  fly 
directly  against  a  strong  wind  without  the  slightest 
visible  motion  of  their  wings?*  Again,  what  is  that 
mysterious  power  that  enables  certain  micro-organ- 


92  THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

isms  to  propel  themselves  through  a  liquid  in  the 
absence  of  physical  organs  of  locomotion?  Speak- 
ing of  this  subject,  Binet i  has  this  to  say :  — 

"  The  Polycystids  have  a  very  peculiar  manner  of  moving ; 
the  motion  is  one  of  perfect  translation,  uniform  and 
rectilinear ;  the  animal  seems  to  slide  all  of  a  piece  over 
the  object  plate ;  it  can  go  to  the  right,  to  the  left,  stay 
its  motion  and  resume  it  again ;  it  is  free  in  directing  its 
movements.  Now,  during  this  movement  nothing  can  be 
seen  to  take  place  in  the  body  from  within  or  without. 
An  analogous  phenomenon  is  to  be  observed  in  the 
Diatomes.  Some  scientists  have  wished  to  explain  the 
mysterious  motion  by  translation  executed  by  the  Gre- 
garines,  as  being  due  to  an  imperceptible  undulation  of 
the  sarcode ;  but  if  there  was  any  undulation  whatever, 
one  ought  to  observe  a  correlative  movement  in  the 
granules  inside  ;  now,  this  is  something  that  is  never  seen. 

"  Thus  there  still  exists  a  great  deal  of  obscurity  concern- 
ing the  principles  determining  motion  among  the  proto- 
organisms.  The  theories  based  upon  muscular  contraction 
that  have  been  propounded  from  observing  higher  animals, 
are  by  no  means  sufficient  to  explain  the  phenomena  of 
motility  among  certain  Protozoa  and  Protophytes."  (The 
italics  are  mine.) 

Now,  I  do  not  undertake  to  say  that  the  energy 
thus  displayed  is  identical  with  telekinesis  as  mani- 
fested in  the  human  organism.  But  since  it  is  true, 
as  the  materialistic  scientists  tell  us,  that  the  potential 
of  manhood  resides  in  the  amoebae  ;  and  since  it  is  de- 
monstrably  true  that  man  is  endowed  with  telekinetic 
energy,  there  is  no  a  priori  ground  for  denying  its 

1  Psychic  Life  of  Micro-Organisms,  p.  19. 


EVOLUTION  AND  THE  SUBJECTIVE  MIND.    93 

existence  in  the  amoebae.  We  are  at  least  warranted 
in  assuming,  provisionally,  that  theory  to  be  the  true 
one  until  materialistic  science  can  give  us  some  sort 
of  explanation  of  the  phenomenon  on  other  grounds. 

It  is  not,  however,  necessary  to  the  validity  of 
our  argument  to  prove  that  unicellular  organisms 
phenomenally  manifest  telekinetic  energy.  Nor  do 
I  assume  it  to  be  true.  Jt  is  sufficient  to  know  that 
man  is  thus  endowed,  and  that  such  powers  reside  in 
his  subjective  mental  organism.  That  being  true,  it 
follows  that  the  same  energy  existed  potentially  in 
his  ancestry,  near  and  remote. 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  indubitable  evidence  exists 
in  every  faculty  of  the  subjective  mind,  of  its  deriva- 
tion from  the  lower  animals,  the  difference  being  of 
degree.  That  is  to  say,  the  function  of  instinct  is 
the  same  in  man  as  in  the  lower  animals;  for  all 
impulses,  desires,  or  emotions  which  are  promotive 
of  the  well-being  of  the  individual  or  of  the  species, 
belong  to  the  domain  of  instinct  or  intuition.  And 
this  is  true  whether  they  are  manifested  in  the  lower 
animals  in  the  impulses  of  self-preservation  and  re- 
production, or  in  the  noblest  acts  or  impulses  of  man, 
when  they  are  promotive  of  the  general  welfare  of 
humanity,  physically,  mentally,  morally,  or  spiritually. 

The  fact  of  the  continuity  of  this  intelligence  being 
thus  established,  we  have  a  right  to  assume  that,  since 
it  began  its  career  and  continued  to  perform  its  func- 
tions for  millions  of  years  independently  of  a  cerebral 
organism,  it  continues  to  perform  its  functions  inde- 
pendently of  the  mental  organism  which  has  its  seat 
in  the  brain.  I  repeat,  therefore,  with  added  emphasis, 
that  there  is  no  a  priori  ground  or  reason  for  suppos- 


94  THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

ing  that  the  brain  is  the  organ  of  the  subjective 
mind.  Now,  if  we  find  that  all  a  posteriori  proofs 
tend  in  the  same  direction  we  may  safely  assume 
the  truth  of  the  proposition  to  be  scientifically 
established. 

I  will  now  briefly  state  a  few  of  the  admitted  facts 
bearing  upon  this  question.  Fortunately  for  my 
purpose,  the  materialistic  scientists  have  themselves 
demonstrated  the  truth  of  the  proposition  by  the 
use  of  the  scalpel.  Thus,  ex-Surgeon-General  Ham- 
mond, in  his  presidential  address  before  the  New 
York  Neurological  Society,  showed  that  certain 
faculties  of  the  mind  do  not  have  their  seat  in  the 
brain.1  In  his  great  work  on  Insanity 2  he  reiterates 
his  declaration,  and  demonstrates  by  many  original 
experiments  that  the  brain  is  not  the  organ  of  the 
instinctive  faculties.  Among  other  experiments,  he 
totally  eliminated  the  brains  of  certain  animals,  and 
found  that  the  instinctive  functions  were  performed 
precisely  as  before.  He  quotes  many  eminent  au- 
thorities to  sustain  his  position,  and  explicitly  declares 
that  the  instinctive  faculties  do  not  reside  in  the 
brain.  He  declares  it  as  his  opinion  that  they  are 
"  seated  exclusively  in  the  medulla  oblongata,  or  in 
the  spinal  cord,  or  in  both  those  organs."  Now, 
those  faculties  which  are  found  not  to  be  located  in 
the  brain  are,  as  I  have  already  pointed  out,  all 
faculties  of  the  subjective  mind. 

I  am  not  disposed,  however,  to  agree  with  Dr. 
Hammond  in  his  confident  statement  that  those 
faculties  are  located  "  exclusively  "  in  any  one  organ 

1  See  Proceedings  of  the  New  York  Neurological  Society  for  1875. 
a  A  Treatise  on  Insanity  in  its  Medical  Relations  :  Appletons, 


EVOLUTION  AND  THE  SUBJECTIVE  MIND.    95 

of  the  body,  much  as  I  admire  him  for  his  genius 
and  his  vast  learning.  That  declaration  he  doubtless 
made  without  duly  considering  all  the  facts  collateral 
to  the  subject  he  was  then  investigating.  Be  that  as 
it  may,  he  has  succeeded  in  demonstrating  duality 
of  mind  by  the  use  of  the  scalpel ;  and  that  is  the 
favorite  instrument  of  the  material  scientists  when 
they  set  out  in  search  for  the  human  soul.  And 
they  have  cut  and  carved,  weighed  and  measured  and 
chemically  analyzed  the  brains  of  men,  living1  and 
dead ;  and  because  they  failed  to  find  a  soul  in  the 
brain  they  dogmatically  declare  that  man  has  no  soul. 
Dr.  Hammond,  however,  has  demonstrated  that  they 
have  all  along  been  looking  for  it  in  the  wrong  place; 
but  as  he  was  not  looking  for  a  soul  at  the  time,  he 
did  not  recognize  it  when  he  discovered  it. 

Materialistic  scientists  have  succeeded  in  demon- 
strating that  the  objective  mind  is  a  function  of  the 
brain,  and  that  it  is  inherent  in  the  brain.  They  have 
demonstrated  that  each  faculty  or  sense  has  a  cortical 
area,  or  brain  centre,  exclusively  its  own ;  and  that 
when  one  of  the  brain  centres  is  eliminated  or  para- 
lyzed, the  corresponding  sense  is  destroyed.  "  Thus," 
they  argue,  "  a  part  of  the  mind  is  forever  obliterated  ; 
and  it  follows  that  when  all  the  brain  centres  are  de- 
stroyed the  whole  mind  is  obliterated."  Their  con- 
clusion is,  of  course,  that  there  can  be  no  such  thing 
as  a  future  life. 

Now,  there  can  be  no  doubt  of  the  correctness  of 

their  facts,  nor  of  the  soundness  of  their  reasoning, 

so  far  as  they  pertain  to  the  objective  mind.     And 

if  that  were  the  only  mental  organism  existent   in 

1  Vide  Washington  Irving  Bishop's  taking  off. 


y> 


96  THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

man,  vain  would  be  his  hope  of  a  future  life.  The 
objective  mind  is  the  function  of  the  brain.  It  is, 
therefore,  inherent  in  the  brain,  and  necessarily  per- 
ishes with  that  organ. 

But  it  does  not  necessarily  follow  that  the  subjec- 
tive mind  is  inherent  in  any  one  or  more  organs  of 
the  body.  On  the  contrary,  all  the  facts  tend  to 
prove  that  it  exists  independently  of  any  specialized 
organ  whatever.  We  have  already  seen  that  the 
monera  are  without  organs ;  and  yet  the  subjective 
mind  exists  in  them,  and  performs  its  functions  just  as 
perfectly,  in  proportion  to  its  stage  of  development, 
as  it  does  in  the  most  highly  organized  human  being. 
Again,  the  facts  of  telekinesis  demonstrate  the  propo- 
sition that  the  subjective  mind  can  exercise  complete 
control  over  unorganized  matter. 

These  facts  are  profoundly  significant,  and  point 
unmistakably  to  the  conclusion  that  the  soul  is  a  self- 
existent  entity  and  does  not  inhere  in  any  organ  of 
""  the  body  which  it  inhabits.  In  other  words,  the  soul 
\  is  immanent,  that  is,  indwelling,  in  the  body,  just  as 
God  is  immanent  in  the  physical  universe,  but  not  in- 
herent  in  it.  That  is  to  say,  as  God  does  not  depend 
upon  the  existence  of  the  physical  universe  for  the 
continuance  of  his  own  existence,  neither  is  the  exist- 
ence of  the  soul  dependent  upon  that  of  the  body. 

Upon  no  other  hypothesis  can  the  immortality  of 
the  soul  be  scientifically  or  logically  predicated ;  and 
I  repeat,  therefore,  and  state  it  as  a  scientific  prop- 
osition, that  the  soul  is  immanent,  and  not_inherentt 
in  the  body. 

It  follows  that  the  mind  of  the  soul,  or  subjective 
mind,  does  not  inhere  in  any  special  organ  or  organs 


EVOLUTION  AND   THE  SUBJECTIVE  MIND.     97 

if  the  body ;  although  it  employs  those  organs  in 
phenomenally  manifesting  itself.  It  seems  extremely 
probable  that  it  pervades  every  bone,  muscle,  sinew, 
fibre,  and  tissue  of  the  body.  Certain  it  is  that  it  is 
potentially  able  to  control  them  all,  and  this  is  one  of 
the  evidences  of  its  immanence  in  every  part  of  the 
body. 

It  is  well  known  that  it  habitually  controls  the  in- 
voluntary muscles  and  functions;  and  that  the  object- 
ive mind,  through  the  brain  and  the  nerve  ganglia 
connected  therewith,  normally  controls  the  voluntary 
muscles  and  functions  of  the  physical  organism. 
The  subjective  mind  has,  therefore,  normally  the 
greater  part  of  the  work  to  do ;  for  its  domain  ex- 
tends from  the  centre  to  the  circumference,  —  from 
the  action  of  the  heart  to  the  metabolism  of  every 
cell  of  which  the  whole  body  is  composed. 

Now,  a  very  important  and  significant  fact  in  this 
connection  is  that  the  functions  of  the  two  minds  are 
not  mutually  interchangeable.  Thus,  the  objective 
mind  cannot,  of  its  own  volition,  move  one  purely 
involuntary  muscle.  Reciprocity,  or  joint  control,  is 
possible  only  in  the  mixed  muscles,  such  as  the 
sphincters  and  the  organs  of  respiration.  But  of  the 
purely  involuntary  muscles  the  objective  mind  has 
no  direct,  volitional  control.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
subjective  mind  can,  and  often  does,  take  entire  con- 
trol of  the  whole  body,  and  wields  it  at  its  will.  This 
can  be  brought  about  experimentally  by  means  of 
hypnotism.  That  is  to  say,  when  the  brain  functions 
are  entirely  inhibited,  the  subjective  mind  can  be 
made  to  dominate  the  whole  physical  system.  It 
almost  invariably  occurs  when  the  body  is  in  immi- 

7 


98  THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

~  nent  and  deadly  peril.     In  such  a  crisis  the  objective 

•  senses  are  benumbed,  the  brain  ceases  to  act,  and  a 
condition  of  anaesthesia  supervenes;  but,  under  the 

i  control  of  the  subjective  mind,  the  body  acts  with 
preternatural  rapidity  and  precision,  and  feats  ot 
strength  are  performed  that  would  be  absolutely  im- 
possible under  normal  conditions.1  Spontaneous 

j  somnambulism  furnishes  many  familiar  illustrations 
of  subjective  control  over  both  the  voluntary  and  the 
involuntary  muscular  and  nervous  systems. 

I  have  cited  these  well-known  facts  for  the  purpose 
of  showing  how  much  more  intimate  and  pervasive 
must  be  the  connection  between  the  subjective  mind 
and  the  body  than  that  which  obtains  between  the 
objective  mind  and  the  body.  The  one  controls  the 
whole  body  without  reference  to  specialized  organs, 
and  the  other  is  limited  in  its  sphere  of  activity,  and 
depends  upon  a  highly  specialized  physical  organ  — 
the  brain  —  for  whatever  efficiency  it  may  possess  in 
its  limited  domain.  The  subjective  mind,  as  shown 
in  its  phylogenetic  history,  acts  with  equal  efficiency 
in  a  highly  specialized  organism,  with  the  functions 
of  the  brain  in  total  abeyance,  as  in  hypnotism;  or 
in  a  crude  physical  organism,  destitute  of  a  brain,  as 
in  the  animals  of  the  archilithic  epoch,  or  in  animals 
destitute  of  any  physical  organs  whatever,  as  in  the 
monera. 

The  difference  being  thus  provisionally  established, 
we  might  reasonably  expect  to  find  that  the  time 
limit  of  reaction  to  peripheral  stimuli  would  be  mate- 
rially decreased  during  hypnosis.  I  say  we  might 

1  For  a  full  discussion  of  this  phenomenon,  see  "  The  Law  of 
Psychic  Phenomena." 


EVOLUTION  AND    THE  SUBJECTIVE  MIND.     99 

reasonably  expect  this  result,  for  the  reason  that 
when  normal  conditions  prevail,  that  is,  when  the 
objective  mind  is  in  control,  and  a  stimulus  is  applied 
to  an  extremity,  say  the  foot,  it  requires  a  meas- 
urable length  of  time  for  the  afferent  nerves  to 
convey  the  message  to  the  brain,  and  then  for  the 
efferent  nerves  to  convey  a  return  message  to  the 
extremity,  suggesting  its  removal  from  the  source  of 
irritation.  It  is  reasonable  to  suppose,  therefore, 
that  if  the  subjective  mind  is  in  control,  and  if  it 
pervades  the  whole  body,  the  message  would  reach 
the  seat  of  control  in  less  time  than  it  takes  to  send 
a  message  through  one  set  of  nerves  from  the  foot  to 
the  brain  and  to  receive  a  reply  from  the  brain  to  the 
foot  through  another  set  of  nerves. 

Accordingly,  we  find,  from  the  experiments  of 
Professor  G.  Stanley  Hall  and  others,  that  the_time 
limit  of  react iqn_in_a  hypnotized  subject  is  decreased 
nearly  one  half  as  compared  with  that  of  the  same 
subject  in  a  normal  condition.  I  am  not  unaware  of 
the  fact  that  Professor  James,  of  Harvard,  and  some 
others,  have  tried  the  same  experiment  with  nega- 
tive results.  But  a  negative  result  possesses  no  evi- 
dential value  whatever  when  it  is  confronted  with 
positive  results  such  as  those  of  Professor  Hall.  A 
thousand  unsuccessful  experiments  prove  nothing 
when  they  are  offset  by  one  successful  experiment. 
I  do  not,  however,  regard  this  difference  in  the 
time  of  reaction  as  by  any  means  conclusive;  but 
it  is  a  factor  in  the  problem  which  is  entitled  to 
consideration ;  for  it  is  one  of  the  series  of  phe- 
nomena that  we  might  expect  to  find,  if  the  hy- 
pothesis is  correct,  that  the  soul  is  immanent  in  the 


100        THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

whole  body,  and  not  localized  or  inherent  in  any 
part  of  it. 

Aside  from  the  surgical  experiments  mentioned, 
however,  some  of  the  strongest  proofs  of  the  truth 
of  this  hypothesis  are  found  in  the  phenomena  imme- 
diately preceding  the  death  of  the  body  and  in  the 
phenomena  of  hypnotism. 

When  death  approaches,  we  find  the  observable 
phenomena  to  be  precisely  what  we  should  have  a 
right  to  expect  if  it  is  true  that  the  soul  of  man  is 
immortal,  and  that  it  is  therefore  immanent,  and 
not  inherent,  in  the  body.  We  also  find  that  the 
objective  mind,  on  the  approach  of  death,  exhibits 
precisely  the  phenomena  which  we  should  have  a 
right  to  anticipate  if  it  is  true  that  it  is  inherent 
in  the  brain,  and  consequently  perishes  with  that 
organ. 

The  respective  phenomena  of  the  two  minds,  then 
exhibited,  are  simply  these :  — 

The  objective  mind,  in  exact  proportion  to  the 
growing  weakness  of  the  physical  organism,  ceases 
to  perform  its  functions  in  perfection ;  and  it  is 
generally,  if  not  always,  completely  obliterated 
before  final  dissolution  takes  place.  Materialistic 
scientists  have  taken  great  pains  to  demonstrate 
this  fact,  because  it  is  demonstrative  that  the  mind 
(objective)  is  dependent  upon  a  physical  organism 
for  its  existence;  and  as  that  class  of  scientists 
know  of  no  other  mind  than  that  of  which  the  brain 
is  the  organ,  they  easily  and  logically  decide  that 
man  is  not  destined  to  a  future  life.  We  may 
therefore  accept  their  facts,  but  not  their  conclu- 
sions; although  it  must  be  said,  in  all  candor,  that 


EVOLUTION  AND   THE  SUBJECTIVE  MIND.    IOI 

if  the  brain  is  the  organ  of  all  that  constitutes  the 
intelligence  of  man,  their  conclusions  are  legitimate 
and  cannot  be  successfully  refuted. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  phenomenal  manifestations 
of  the  subjective  mind  become  more  and  more  pro- 
nounced as  death  approaches  and  the  body  grows 
feeble;  and  its  strongest  manifestations  are  made 
in  the  very  hour  of  dissolution.  This  fact  is  attested 
by  all  the  records  of  psychic  manifestations,  includ- 
ing those  of  the  Society  for  Psychical  Research.1 
Many  instances  are  recorded  of  most  wonderful 
psychic  manifestations,  at  the  hour  of  death,  by 
persons  who  had  never  before  possessed  any  phe- 
nomenal psychic  power  whatever.  The  publications 
of  the  Society  for  Psychical  Research  abound  in 
well-authenticated  instances  where  telepathic  mes- 
sages were  sent  to  distant  friends,  at  the  hour  of 
death,  announcing  the  event  and  describing  the 
tragic  details. 

It  is,  in  fact,  the  ultimate  phenomenal  manifesta- 
tion of  the  universal  law  of  psychic  activity  that  the 
more  perfectly  quiescent  the  brain  becomes  the 
stronger  become  the  manifestations  of  the  subjec- 
tive mind.  This,  I  repeat,  is  a  universal  law, 
beginning  with  the  lightest  stage  or  degree  of 
hypnotic  sleep  and  ending  in  ecstasis  or  in  death. 
In  the  supreme  hour,  therefore,  after  the  brain  has 
forever  ceased  to  perform  its  functions,  and  the 
objective  mind  is  totally  extinct,  there  is  an  inter- 
val before  the  soul  takes  its  final  departure  in  which 
it  shines  forth  with  phenomenal  lustre,  to  give  as- 1 
surance  to  the  world  that  the  death  of  the  body  is  \ 

1  See  "  Phantasms  of  the  Living." 


102         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

1  but  the  birth  of  the  soul  into  a  higher  and  a  more 

I  perfect  life.     &  ^-^^   <^>  * 

This  phenomenon  is  a  part  of  almost  every  death- 
bed scene,  although  it  is  comparatively  rare  that  it 
is  so  strikingly  manifested  as  to  attract  attention. 
It  is  well  known  to  almost  every  one  who  is  familiar 

I  with  the  phenomena  of  death,  that,  just  previous  to 
final  dissolution,  the  mind  of  the  patient  suddenly 
brightens,  pain  ceases,  and  other  symptoms  of  con- 
valescence often  supervene  to  such  an  extent  that 

i  the  friends  are  filled  with  renewed  hope.  The 
experienced  physician  knows,  however,  how  illusive 

:  are  such  hopes  and  how  soon  they  are  to  be  blasted. 
The  psychologist  knows  that  the  supreme  moment 
has  arrived,  that  the  brain  has  forever  ceased  its 

1  functions,  and  that  the  mind  of  the  immortal  part  of 
man  has  phenomenally  demonstrated  its  potential 
energy,  —  its  independence  of  bodily  conditions. 

One  of  the  most  striking  exhibitions  of  this  phe- 
nomenon that  have  ever  come  under  my  notice  was 
witnessed  at  the  death-bed  of  ex-Governor  Claude 
Matthews,  of  Indiana,  in  1898;  and  I  cannot  more 
appropriately  close  this  part  of  my  argument  than 
by  relating  the  circumstance. 

On  August  29,  1898,  the  morning  papers  con- 
tained the  following  Associated  Press  report,  which 
is  as  concise  and  intelligent  as  it  is  possible  to 
make  it ;  and  it  is  therefore  reproduced  entire :  — 

"  Wingate,  Ind.,  Aug.  28. —  At  6.30  o'clock  this  morn- 
ing at  the  quiet  Meharry  homestead,  where  he  was  taken 
immediately  after  his  sudden  affliction,  ex-Gov.  Claude 
Matthews  passed  away  peacefully,  surrounded  by  his  wife 
and  all  the  other  members  of  his  immediate  family. 


EVOLUTION  AND   THE  SUBJECTIVE  MIND.    103 

"There  was  prayer  service,  accompanied  by  the  singing  of 
hymns,  at  the  bedside  of  the  dying  ex-Governor.  Mrs. 
Matthews  was  very  much  affected,  and  stated  that  she 
would  give  anything  in  the  world  if  her  husband  would 
manifest  by  a  single  word  his  faith  in  Jesus.  About  three 
o'clock  the  minister  in  the  course  of  the  services  asked  the 
dying  man  if  he  believed  in  Jesus.  The  answer,  as  plainly 
as  any  one  could  articulate  it,  was  '  Yes.'  The  three  phy- 
sicians regarded  this  answer  as  remarkable,  as  all  agreed 
that  the  particular  part  of  the  brain  affected  by  the  paraly- 
sis was  that  governing  speech,  and  that  the  ex-Governor 
would  probably  never  have  talked  had  he  lived.  It  was  the 
only  word  he  spoke  after  he  was  stricken.  He  immediately 
lapsed  into  a  profound  coma,  from  which  he  did  not  re- 
cover before  he  passed  away  at  6.30  o'clock." 

Immediately  upon  the  publication  of  this  report,  I 
addressed  a  letter  of  inquiry  to  one  of  the  physicians 
in  attendance  upon  the  distinguished  patient,  Dr. 
Olin  ;  but  as  he  did  not  happen  to  be  present  at  the 
time  the  event  occurred,  he  turned  the  letter  over 
to  Dr.  F.  D.  Allhands,  who  very  kindly  replied  as 
follows :  — 

Office  of  F.  D.  ALLHANDS,  Physician  and  Surgeon, 
WINGATE,  IND.,  Sept.  14,  1898. 

DEAR  MR.  HUDSON,  —  Your  letter  was  handed  to  me  by 
Dr.  Olin.  He  was  not  present  at  the  time  of  the  death  of 
Mr.  Matthews.  Dr.  R.  French  Stone,  of  Indianapolis,  and 
I  were  present.  He  [Governor  Matthews]  did  speak  the 
word  "  Yes "  very  distinctly,  so  as  all  in  the  room  could 
hear  and  understand  him.  The  part  of  the  brain  that 
governs  speech  was  undoubtedly  affected  ;  that  was  the 
opinion  of  all  the  physicians.  I  see  no  objection  to  your 
using  my  name.  Yours  truly, 

F.  D.  ALLHANDS. 


104        THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN, 

The  evidential  value  of  this  case  can  hardly  be 
overestimated  if  the  diagnosis  of  the  physicians  was 
correct;  and  it  is  difficult  to  imagine  how  they  could 
be  mistaken.  The  hypothesis  we  have  been  con- 
sidering, however,  affords  an  easy  explanation  of 
the  phenomenon.  The  cortical  area  controlling  the 
organs  of  speech  was  paralyzed  ;  and  in  all  human 
probability  the  whole  brain  had  ceased  its  functions 
at  the  time  when  the  event  happened.  The  subjec- 
tive mind  was,  therefore,  active  and  in  control.  The 
brain  action  being  inhibited,  the  subjective  mind 
was  amenable  to  control  by  suggestion,  unhampered 
by  any  possible  adverse  auto-suggestion.  Every- 
thing, in  fact,  conspired  to  bring  about  the  result. 
The  supreme  moment  in  the  life  of  the  dying  man 
had  arrived.  The  overwhelming  desire  of  the  stricken 
wife  to  know  if  he  had  faith  in  Jesus  had  been  ex- 
pressed. The  religious  training  of  his  youth  had 
taught  him  that  a  confession  of  trust  in  Christ  was 
essential  to  salvation.  The  clergyman's  question, 
uttered  in  a  tone  of  solemn  earnestness,  and  ad- 
dressed directly  to  the  patient,  constituted  the  strong- 
est conceivable  suggestion  that  an  answer  was  not 
only  possible,  but  was  expected.  In  pursuance  of 
that  suggestion  the  subjective  mind  of  the  dying  man 
answered  the  question. 

In  doing  so,  it  simply  exercised  that  control  over 
the  functions  of  the  body  which,  as  we  have  already 
seen,  it  normally  exercises  in  all  cases  of  emergency, 
especially  when  the  action  of  the  brain  is,  from  any 
cause,  inhibited. 

The  most  prolific  source  of  evidence  of  the  correct- 
ness of  the  hypothesis,  however,  is  found  in  the 


EVOLUTION  AND    THE  SUBJECTIVE  MIND.  105 

phenomena  of  experimental  hypnotism,  especially 
that  of  amnesia  subsequent  to  the  induction  of  a 
state  of  profound  hypnosis.  Every  student  of  the 
phenomena  of  cerebral  activity  is  aware  that  all  our 
normal  mental  experiences  are  registered  in  the 
brain.  That  is  to  say,  every  thought  or  experience 
of  normal  consciousness  produces  a  corresponding 
modification  of  brain  cells.  New  cells  are  created 
and  old  cells  are  modified,  and  these  constitute  the 
physical  receptacles  of  memories  of  brain  thought 
and  experience.  Every  hypnotist  knows  that  a 
profoundly  hypnotized  subject  does  not  remember 
what  takes  place  during  the  time  of  deep  hypnosis, 
no  matter  how  exciting  and  impressive  may  be  the 
scenes  in  which  he  has  been  made  to  figure  in  pur- 
suance of  the  suggestions  of  the  hypnotist.  The 
obvious  explanation  is  that  the  action  of  the  brain 
is  inhibited  during  deep  hypnosis ;  and  hence  there 
is,  and  can  be,  no  change  in  the  brain  cells  to  corre- 
spond to  the  thoughts  and  experiences  of  the  sub- 
jective mind. 

The  phenomena  of  spontaneous  somnambulism  are 
exactly  parallel,  and  the  explanation  is  the  same. 
On  the  other  hand,  in  a  state  of  partial  hypnosis  the 
subject  will  often  remember  the  details  of  his  sub- 
jective thoughts  and  hallucinations  ;  and  the  memory 
will  be  vivid  in  exact  inverse  proportion  to  the  depth 
of  the  hypnosis.  The  phenomena  of  dreams  during 
natural  sleep  are  precisely  the  same.  We  remember 
those  dreams  only  which  come  to  us  when  we  are 
just  between  sleeping  and  waking  —  before  the  brain 
ceases  to  act,  as  we  are  going  to  sleep,  or  after  it  is 
partially  roused  to  activity  as  we  are  awakening.  All 


106        THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

psychologists  agree  that  we  are  constantly  dreaming 
as  we  sleep ;  but  the  dreams  of  profound  sleep  are 
not  registered  in  the  brain,  for  the  simple  reason  that 
the  action  of  the  brain  is  then  totally  inhibited  ;  and, 
as  in  all  other  cases  where  the  objective  mind  is  in 
abeyance,  the  subjective  mind  is  correspondingly 
active. 

The  foregoing  are  a  few  of  the  many  facts  and 
observable  phenomena  which  demonstrate  duality  of 
mind,  and  prove  beyond  a  doubt  that  the  brain  is 
not  the  organ  of  the  subjective  mind.  I  have  felt 
compelled  to  dwell  upon  the  subject  at  some  length, 
because  the  propositions  which  the  facts  substantiate 
are  the  basic  truths  of  psychic  science.  In  the  next 
chapter  I  propose  to  make  a  brief  statement  of  what 
I  conceive  to  be  the  office  and  function  of  the  brain 
as  a  factor  in  the  grand  scheme  of  evolutionary  de- 
velopment of  the  human  soul. 


CHAPTER  V. 

EVOLUTION  AND  THE  OBJECTIVE  MIND. 

Table  showing  when  Brain  was  evolved.  —  Rapidity  of  Subsequent 
Evolutionary  Progress.  —  Geometrical  Rate  of  Increase.  —  The 
Neptunian  Strata. — The  Inconceivable  Length  of  Time  em- 
braced in  Organic  History.  —  Psychological  Lessons  taught  by 
the  Table.  —  More  than  One  Half  the  Time  elapsed  before  a 
Brain  appeared  on  this  Earth.  —  Progress  Slow  up  to  that  Time.  — 
Development  more  Rapid  in  the  Next  Epoch,  but  still  Slow.  — 
One  Third  of  the  Time  consumed  in  the  Age  of  Fishes. — The 
Following  Epoch  made  still  more  Rapid  Progress,  yet  about  One 
Ninth  of  the  Time  was  consumed  in  the  Reptilian  Age.  —  The 
Age  of  Mammals  occupied  but  about  One  Fiftieth  of  the  Whole 
Time.  — The  Age  of  Man  but  One  Two-Hundredth  Part.— The 
Historic  Period  occupied  but  an  infinitesimally  Small  Part  of 
One  Per  Cent  of  the  Whole  Time.  —  The  Significance  of  these 
Facts.  —  The  Real  Function  of  the  Brain  in  Organic  Life.  — 
When  did  Animals  begin  to  Reason  ?  —  The  Brain  as  a  Factor  in 
Evolutionary  Development.  —  Its  Inductive  Powers.  —  Its  Ability 
to  cope  with  an  Environment  of  Error  incident  to  Organic  Life 
in  the  Formative  Stage.  —  The  Significance  of  the  Intuitive  Fac- 
ulty.—  Another  Plane  of  Existence  its  Apparent  Realm  of  Activ- 
ity. —  Some  Fundamental  Axioms.  —  Secondary  Instincts.  — The 
Power  of  Induction  in  Animals.  —  Increased  Rate  of  Progressive 
Development  due  to  that  Faculty. 

ON  the  following  page  will  be  found  a  table  l  the 
data  for  which  I  have  taken  from  Haeckel's 
"  Evolution  of  Man."     The  first  column  comprises 
an  estimate  of  the  Neptunian  fossiliferous  strata  of 
the  earth,  with  reference  to  their  relative  sectional 

1  This  table  contains  the  substance  of  three  tables  to  be  found 
in  Haeckel's  "Evolution  of  Man,"  vol.  ii.  pp.  n,  18,  19.  I  have 
grouped  them  into  one  for  convenience  of  reference  and  examination. 


108         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 


thickness  (130,000  feet  being  the  approximate  thick- 
ness of  the  whole). 


TABLE   II. 


Fossiliferous 
Strata. 


Palceontological  Periods. 


Per  Cent  of 
Time. 


30,000  ft. 
18,000  ft. 
22,000  ft. 


42,000  ft. 


1 5,000  ft. 


3,000  ft. 


Total  1 30,000  ft. 


I.  Archilithic  or  Primordial  Epoch 
(Age  of  Skull-less  Animals). 

1.  Laurentian  Period.  ) 

2.  Cambrian  Period. 

3.  Silurian  Period.  ) 

II.  Palaeolithic  or  Primary  Epoch 

(Age  of  Fishes). 

(  I.  Devonian  Period.  i 

]  2.  Coal  Period. 
(  3.  Permian  Period.  ) 

III.  Mesolithic  or  Secondary  Epoch 
(Age  of  Reptiles). 

!i.  Triassic  Period.  ) 

2.  Jurassic  Period. 
3.  Chalk  Period.  ) 

IV.  Caenolithic  or  Tertiary  Epoch 
(Age  of  Mammals). 

(  i.  Eocene  Period.  ) 

?  2.  Miocene  Period. 

(  3.  Pliocene  Period.  ) 

V.  Anthropolithic  or  Quaternary 
Epoch  (Age  of  Man). 

1.  Ice  Age,  Glacial  Period.  ) 

2.  Post-Glacial  Period. 

3.  Period  of  Culture.  ) 


53-6 


32.x 


2-3 


o-S 


Total  joo.o 


(The  Period  of  Culture  is  the  Historic  Period,  or  Period  of 
Tradition.) 

The  second  column  embraces  a  systematic  survey 
of  the  palaeontological  periods,  or  greater  divisions 
in  the  history  of  the  organic  earth. 


EVOLUTION  AND    THE   OBJECTIVE  MIND.     1 09 

The  third  column  is  a  statement  of  the  percentages 
assigned  to  the  relative  durations  of  the  five  main 
divisions  or  epochs,  as  shown  in  the  other  two 
columns. 

Thus  the  reader  has  before  him,  in  one  view,  the 
salient  facts  in  the  history  of  organic  evolution,  and 
the  geological  data  from  which  the  time  estimates 
have  been  made.  That  they  are  both  substantially 
correct  is  not  seriously  disputed  by  competent 
authority,  although  no  pretence  can  be  made  of 
absolute  correctness.  It  is  entirely  probable  that 
the  grand  divisions  outlined  may  lap  over  each 
other  to  a  limited  extent;  but  it  is  impossible  that 
they  should  do  so  to  such  a  degree  as  to  invalidate 
any  conclusions  that  have  been,  or  are  likely  to  be, 
drawn  from  them.  Thus,  it  may  be  that  the  line 
between  the  primordial  and  the  primary  epochs  does 
not  sharply  define  the  boundary  between  the  in- 
vertebrate ancestors  of  man  and  those  of  his  more 
pretentious  relatives  who  can  boast  of  the  regulation 
backbone.  Nor  is  it  quite  certain  whether  man  did 
not  make  his  first  appearance  sometime  during  the 
caenolithic  epoch.  But  a  few  thousand  years  more 
or  less  on  either  side  of  the  line  dividing  any  two 
epochs  does  not  count  for  much  when  we  consider 
the  aeons  that  must  have  elapsed  since  the  first 
appearance  of  organic  life  upon  this  planet.  The 
relative  duration  of  the  epochs  is  sufficiently  apparent 
in  the  thickness  of  the  various  Neptunian  strata  to 
justify  the  few  conclusions  that  pertain  to  the  sub- 
ject under  consideration. 

There  are  two  primary  lessons  taught  by  facts 
stated  in  the  table  that  are  as  obvious  as  they  are 


1 10         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

important.  The  first  is  that  a  brain  is  not  necessary 
either  to  the  sustentation  of  life  or  the  manifestation 
of  intelligence.  Indeed  it  may  be  said  that  more 
than  one  half  of  all  the  millions  of  years  that  have 
elapsed  since  organic  life  appeared  upon  the  earth 
have  been  consumed  in  demonstrating  that  fact. 

The  second  lesson  is  that  a  brain  is  necessary 
to  the  rapid  development  of  life  and  intelligence. 

The  table  of  time  percentages  shows  that  progress 
is  exactly  proportioned  to  brain  development.  Thus, 
the  primordial  epoch,  or  age  of  brainless  animals, 
occupied  more  than  one  half  of  the  whole  time. 
That  is  to  say,  in  the  absence  of  a  brain  it  required 
53.6  per  cent  of  the  time  that  has  elapsed  since  the 
appearance  of  the  monera  to  develop  the  animal 
kingdom  up  to  the  lowest  of  the  vertebrata. 

The  next  epoch  was  the  age  of  fishes ;  and  they 
being  endowed  with  brains,  the  rate  of  development 
was  correspondingly  increased.  But  a  little  over 
thirty-two  per  cent  of  the  time  was  consumed  in 
developing  from  them  the  amphibia  and  the  reptiles. 
It  was  a  long-drawn-out  epoch  compared  with  those 
that  followed,  but  it  was  a  decided  improvement 
over  the  one  that  preceded  it.  The  brains  of  fishes 
are  not  very  highly  developed  or  specialized,  but 
the  table  of  percentages  shows  that  they  were  a 
decided  improvement  upon  no  brains  at  all.  The 
best  evidence  of  that  is  that  they  were  capable  of 
development,  and  this  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  the 
more  highly  endowed  fishes  sought  fresh  fields  and 
pastures  new  by  making  occasional  incursions  upon 
dry  land.  From  these  were  developed  the  amphibia 
and  the  whole  reptilian  race. 


EVOLUTION  AND   THE   OBJECTIVE  MIND.     Ill 

The  age  of  reptiles,  as  shown  by  the  table,  con- 
sumed but  a  little  over  eleven  per  cent  of  the  time 
in  developing  the  mammalia. 

The  mammalian  age,  in  turn,  decreased  the  per- 
centage in  a  still  greater  proportion,  consuming  but 
a  little  over  two  per  cent  of  the  whole  time  in 
developing  up  to  man. 

Lastly,  the  age  of  man  embraces  but  one-half 
per  cent  of  the  whole  time  since  organic  life  ap- 
peared upon  the  earth;  and  this  includes  the  glacial 
period  and  the  post-glacial  period. 

It  is  obvious  that  if  we  should  segregate  the  period 
of  culture,  or  historic  period,  from  that  of  prehistoric 
man,  we  should  find  that  the  percentage  of  duration 
of  the  historic  period  was  but  an  infinitesimal  part 
of  one  per  cent  of  the  whole. 

We  are  now,  in  some  measure,  prepared  to  appre- 
ciate the  part  which  the  brain  has  played  in  the 
development  of  organic  and  intellectual  life  on  this 
planet ;  for  we  have  seen  that,  since  it  became  a 
part  of  the  equipment  of  organic  life,  it  has  accel- 
erated the  progress  of  evolutionary  development  in  a 
geometrical  ratio.  It  has,  moreover,  changed  the 
original  significance  of  the  law  of  "  survival  of  the 
fittest."  Thus,  before  a  brain  was  evolved,  fitness 
to  survive  was  wholly  a  matter  of  physical  strength 
or  development.  After  the  development  of  the 
brain,  sagacity  became  the  most  potential  factor  in 
the  problem  of  survival ;  and  from  the  time  when  the 
most  highly  developed  fishes  began  to  seek  safety  in 
a  new  environment,  by  crawling  out  of  their  native 
element  and  taking  refuge  upon  the  dry  land 
(amphibia),  until  man  appeared  upon  the  earth, 


112         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

sagacity  has  been  a  factor  of  constantly  increasing 
potency  in  the  survival  of  the  fittest.  Man  is  so 
far  advanced  in  the  scale  of  being  that  he  is  com- 
paratively independent  of  environment,  or  rather  he 
is  able  to  create  his  own  environment ;  and  physical 
strength  is  the  least  in  importance  of  the  factors  in 
the  problem  of  survival. 

These,  however,  are  trite  sayings  and  are  matters 
of  common  observation.  What  concerns  us  most,  for 
the  purposes  of  this  argument,  is  the  process  by 
which  this  development  was  brought  about,  and  the 
conclusions  derivable  from  a  study  of  that  process. 

In  pursuing  this  study  I  hope  to  find  a  solution  of 
several  problems  that  have  perplexed  the  scientific 
mind,  among  which  are  the  following:  — 

First,  what  is  the  real  office  and  function  of  the 
brain  in  organic  life? 

Secondly,  when  do  animals  begin  to  exercise  the 
powers  of  reason? 

Thirdly,  what  is  the  potential  factor  in  the  devel- 
opment of  secondary  instincts? 

In  discussing  these  questions  I  shall  first  postulate 
certain  things  regarding  the  functions  of  the  brain, 
leaving  some  of  their  verifying  facts  to  be  developed 
in  the  discussion  of  the  remaining  questions,  and  re- 
ferring the  reader  back  to  some  of  the  preceding 
chapters  for  other  proofs  of  my  postulates. 

I  assume,  then,  that  the  brain  is  simply  a  physi- 
cal organ,  possessing  but  one  distinctive  power  or 
function,  namely,  the  faculty  of  inductive  reasoning. 
It  was  evolved  in  response  to  the  necessities  of  a 
physical  environment;  and  the  specific  office  of  the 
intellectual  faculty,  or  mind,  of  which  it  is  the  organ, 


EVOLUTION  AND   THE   OBJECTIVE  MIND.      113 

is  that  of  a  guide  to  its  possessor  through  the  manifold 
mazes  of  that  environment.  This  intelligence,  which 
has  been  denominated  the  objective  mind,  apparently 
does  not  constitute  an  integral  part  of  the  primary 
intelligence,  or  subjective  mind,  although  it  often 
acts  in  perfect  synchronism  with  it. 

As  I  have  already  pointed  out,  the  subjective 
mind,  under  and  by  virtue  of  the  law  of  suggestion, 
is  incapable  of  independently  carrying  on  the  process 
of  induction.  It  has,  however,  the  faculty  of  deduc- 
tion in  potential  perfection.  It  must,  therefore,  take 
its  premises  from  an  extraneous  source.  The  reason 
for  this  apparent  limitation  of  mental  power  will 
more  fully  appear  as  we  proceed.  In  the  mean  time 
it  must  suffice  to  say  that  the  subjective  mind  does* 
not  appear  to  have  originated  on  this  earthly  plane,  \ 
nor  does  it  appear  that  this  plane  of  existence  is  its  \ 
final  goal.  Its  first  manifestation  on  the  earthly^ 
plane  revealed  a  far  higher  power  than  that  of  induc- 
tion, and  the  world  has  named  it  "instinct."  Its 
higher  manifestations  are  called  "  intuition."  As  I 
have  already  pointed  out,  they  are  identical,  differing 
only  in  degree.  It  is  the  power  of  immediate  per- 
ception of  laws  or  general  principles,  and  it  is  ante- 
cedent to,  and  independent  of,  reason  or  experience 
or  instruction.  Induction  is  but  another  method  of 
ascertaining  general  laws  or  principles.  This  it 
accomplishes  by  the  slow  and  laborious  process  of 
gathering  facts  of  observation  or  experience.  It 
possesses  the  faculty  of  discrimination  between  what 
is  real  and  what  is  apparent,  and  of  estimating  the 
value  and  pertinency  of  all  the  facts  of  its  environ- 
ment. Hence  its  adaptation  to  an  imperfect  envi- 

8 


114        THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

ronment,  such  as  sentient  creatures  are  compelled  to 
confront  in  this  world,  —  an  environment  that  is 
filled  with  snares  and  pitfalls,  physical  and  moral, 
enemies  to  life  and  foes  to  progress ;  an  environment 
of  error,  falsehood,  and  uncertainty;  in  short,  a  world 
that  is  in  a  formative  state,  just  emerging  from  prim- 
itive conditions,  physical,  mental,  and  moral.  Obvi- 
ously the  one  mental  faculty  adapted  to  cope  with 
the  exigencies  of  such  an  environment  is  that  of 

o 

inductive  reason,  —  the  faculty  of  discrimination,  the 
faculty  that  enables  its  possessor  to  arrive  at  funda- 
mental truth  by  a  process  of  systematic  analysis  of 
facts  and  appearances,  —  of  proving  all  things,  and 
holding  fast  only  to  that  which  is  good. 

The  subjective  mind  does  not  possess  that  faculty 
for  the  reasons  that,  as  I  have  before  remarked, 
(i)  it  apparently  had  its  origin  in  another  and  a 
higher  plane  of  existence;  and  (2)  it  is  apparently 
destined,  ultimately,  to  return  to  its  native  realm 
I  shall  assume,  provisionally,  this  to  be  the  correct 
hypothesis,  reserving  the  proofs  for  their  proper 
places  in  subsequent  chapters  of  this  book.  In  the 
mean  time  it  must  also  be  assumed,  subject  to  subse- 
quent verification,  that  the  environment  of  the  ulti- 
mate home  of  the  human  soul  is  perfect.  That  is 
to  say,  it  is  a  realm  of  truth,  a  realm  where  no  false- 
hood or  false  appearances  beset  the  minds  of  its 
inhabitants.  It  is  obvious,  therefore,  that  the  faculty 
of  induction  would  be  superfluous  in  a  realm  where 
nothing  but  truth  is  in  evidence.  Nevertheless  a 
faculty  adapted  to  such  conditions  is  required ;  and 
that  faculty  we  find  existent  in  the  subjective  mind 
of  man,  namely,  that  of  intuition,  —  the  faculty  of 


EVOLUTION  AND   THE   OBJECTIVE  MIND.      115 

immediate  apprehension  of  fundamental  truth,  ante- 
cedent to,  and  independent  of,  reason,  experience, 
or  instruction. 

Now,  it  is  axiomatic  that  nature  never  creates  an 
unnecessary  or  a  superfluous  mental  faculty .  It  follows 
that  the  faculty  of  intuition,  since  it  is  limited  and 
circumscribed  in  this  world  by  the  law  of  suggestion, 
must  reach  the  full  fruition  of  its  powers  in  some 
higher  plane  of  existence.1 

It  is  also  axiomatic  that  nature  never  fails  to  create 
or  evolve  such  mental  faculties  as  are  necessary  to 
adapt  sentient  creatures  to  their  environment. 

The  history  of  organic  and  mental  evolution  amply 
verifies  this  proposition.  Thus,  the  primary  intelli- 
gence amply  sufficed  for  the  first  stages  of  develop- 
ment, that  is,  during  practically  the  whole  of  the 
primordial  epoch.  This,  as  we  have  seen,  was  the 
age  of  skull-less  animals  and  seaweed  forests.  During 
the  whole  of  this  epoch  the  inhabitants  of  our  planet 
consisted  exclusively  of  aquatic  forms.  "  At  least," 
says  Haeckel,  "  no  remains  of  terrestrial  animals  or 
plants  dating  from  this  period  have  as  yet  been 
found.  A  few  remains  of  land-dwelling  organisms 
which  are  sometimes  referred  to  the  Silurian  period, 
are  Devonian."  Vegetable  life  capable  of  sustaining 
animal  existence  had  not  yet  appeared  upon  the  dry 
land.  There  was  necessarily  but  little  variation  in 
the  aquatic  environment;  and  there  was  nothing, 
therefore,  to  facilitate  or  incite  a  rapid  development 
of  either  organic  or  mental  life.  As  a  consequence, 

i  For  a  full  discussion  of  this  particular  branch  of  the  subject,  see 
"  A  Scientific  Demonstration  of  the  Future  Life."  It  is  incidentally 
mentioned  here  to  complete  the  present  argument 


Il6         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

the  primary  instincts  being  alone  developed,  the 
process  was  slow.  Nevertheless,  there  was  progress 
made,  and  at  the  close  of  the  primordial  epoch  the 
lowest  of  the  vertebrate  ancestors  of  man  appeared 
and  a  brain  began  to  be  evolved. 

//  was  then  that  animals  began  to  reason.  It  was 
then  that  the  faculty  of  induction  became  a  potential. 
It  was  a  long  time  before  it  was  so  far  developed  as 
to  leave  a  record  of  its  existence ;  but  the  time  came 
at  last,  and  the  first  phenomenal  manifestation  of 
that  power  that  left  an  impress  visible  to  science 
was  when  the  most  highly  endowed  fishes  began  to 
seek  release  from  their  native  environment  by  making 
incursions  upon  dry  land,  and  thus  gave  rise  to  the 
amphibian  class.  It  was  then  that  secondary  instincts 
began  to  be  developed.  That  is  to  say,  it  was  then 
that  "  intelligent  acts  "  began  to  be  performed  which 
eventually  were  "converted  into  instincts"  (Darwin). 

Before  entering  upon  the  discussion  of  that  branch 
of  the  subject,  however,  let  us  briefly  examine  the 
essential  character  of  the  process  of  induction  as  it 
was  and  is  manifested  in  the  lower  animals. 

Inductive  reasoning,  as  every  one  knows,  when 
considered  as  a  distinctive  faculty  or  power  of  the 
human  mind,  consists  in  collecting,  classifying,  and 
analyzing  the  facts  of  observation  and  experience, 
for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  the  general  law  or 
principle  underlying  the  series  of  facts  under  con- 
sideration. It  is  the  faculty  of  discrimination.  It  is 
the  power  of  adaptation  to  environment;  and  this  is 
true  whether  it  is  manifested  in  man  or  in  the  lower 
animals.  And  it  may  be  set  down  as  axiomatic 
that,  other  things  being  equal,  the  power  of  adapta- 


EVOLUTION  AND    THE   OBJECTIVE  MIND.      II 7 

tion  to  environment  is  exactly  proportioned  to  the 
development  of  the  faculty  of  induction.  An  animal 
without  a  brain  will  perish  in  a  changed  environment 
Man  alone  possesses  the  capacity  to  adapt  himself  to 
the  extremes  of  environmental  conditions;  for  he 
alone  has  the  power  to  modify  existent  conditions  or 
to  create  new  ones  for  himself.  Between  these  two 
extremes  there  exist  a  thousand  grades  of  adaptive 
capacity,  but,  as  before  remarked,  the  grade  is 
determined  by  the  development  of  the  faculty  of 
induction. 

The  simplest  way  to  explain  what  I  mean  by 
induction  in  the  lower  animals  is  to  contrast  the 
functions  of  the  objective  and  subjective  minds  as 
they  are  manifested  in  all  grades  of  mental  capacity. 

I  have  already  shown  that  the  subjective  mind  of 
man  is  constantly  amenable  to  control  by  suggestion. 
Hypnotists  describe  the  effect  upon  a  hypnotized 
subject  as  "  monideaism."  That  is  to  say,  the  sub- 
ject is  dominated  by  one  idea  to  the  exclusion  of  all 
other  ideas  that  are  antagonistic  to  the  one  embraced 
in  the  suggestion  that  has  been  made  to  him.  That 
idea  is  accepted  by  his  subjective  mind  as  the  fun- 
damental law  pertaining  to  the  subject-matter  of  the 
suggestion ;  and  he  proceeds  to  reason  deductively 
from  that  supposed  fundamental  to  all  the  conclu- 
sions legitimately  derivable  therefrom.  All  other 
facts,  especially  those  which  antagonize  the  domi- 
nant idea  or  suggestion,  are  ignored.  This  is  true 
whether  the  suggestion  is  true  or  false.  It  is  obvious 
that,  if  the  suggestion  is  false,  the  deductions  will 
lead  to  the  grossest  error;  although  they  may  be 
perfectly  logical  in  themselves.  It  is  also  obvious 


Il8         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

that,  when  the  suggestion  is  true,  the  prodigious 
power  of  correct  deduction,  which  is  characteristic 
of  the  subjective  mind,  enables  it  to  grasp  and  assim- 
ilate all  that  there  is  of  truth  deducible  from  the  sug- 
gestion. Hence  it  is  that,  in  an  environment  of 
truth,  the  subjective  mind  is  never  led  astray;  for 
its  power  of  intuitive  perception  of  the  laws  of  its 
being  and  environment  always  insures  truthful  sug- 
gestions ;  and  its  power  of  potentially  inerrant  deduc- 
tion insures  correct  conclusions. 

But  the  physical  world  does  not  afford  such  an 
environment;  and  false  suggestions  in  every  con- 
ceivable form  continually  beset  every  sentient  crea- 
ture. Hence  the  necessity  of  investing  the  animal 
kingdom  with  a  faculty  adapted  to  such  an  envi- 
ronment. Hence  the  evolution  of  the  brain,  with  its 
capacity  for  induction,  —  its  faculty  or  power  of  dis- 
crimination, its  ability  to  consider  more  than  one  fact 
or  appearance  at  a  time  and  to  estimate  their  re- 
spective weights  and  values.  And  this  is  inductive 
reasoning,  whether  it  is  manifested  in  the  scientist, 
who  collects  a  vast  congeries  of  facts  and  classifies 
and  weighs  them  with  the  intelligence  born  of  culture 
and  experience,  or  in  the  animal  which  is  only  ca- 
pable of  comprehending  two  facts  at  a  time  and  weigh- 
ing their  respective  values. 

This,  then,  is  the  primary  distinctive  difference  be- 
tween the  two  minds.  The  subjective  mind  considers 
but  one  fact  or  suggestion  at  a  time.  It  accepts  that 
fact,  or  that  apparent  fact,  or  suggestion  of  fact,  as 
true,  and  it  acts  accordingly.  This  is  what  is  known 
to  science  as  the  "  law  of  suggestion."  On  the 
other  hand,  the  objective  mind  is  capable  of  con- 


EVOLUTION  AND   THE   OBJECTIVE  MIND.      1 19 

sidering  two  or  more  facts,  or  suggestions  of  fact, 
and  of  exercising  a  discriminating  judgment  between 
them.     It  is  the  difference  between  instinct  or  intui- 
tion and  induction.     In  an  environment  of  truth  the 
first  is  inerrant.     In  an  environment  of  uncertainty 
the  second  becomes  necessary.     The  history  of  or-^ 
ganic  evolution  shows  that  whateverwas  found  to  be  \ 
necessary  to  the  conservation  of  animal  life  was  event- 
ually evolved  in  response  to  that  necessity.     Accord-  / 
ingly,  when  a  supplemental  faculty  of  mind  became  a 
necessity,   a   new  physical   organ   was   evolved,  the  , 
function  of  which  supplied  the  deficiency  and  gave  % 
to  animal  life  a  fresh  impulse  in  the  direction  of  pro-  \ 
gressive  development.     The  conclusion  seems  obvi- 
ous and  irresistible  that  it  was  when  the  brain  was  , 
evolved   that   animals   began  to   reason,  that  is,  to 
reason  by  the  process  of  induction ;  and  that  it  was  i 
due  to  the  development  of  that  faculty,  and  in  exact 
proportion  to  that  development,  that  the  constantly) 
accelerated  ratio  of  evolutionary  progress  was  due.  // 


CHAPTER  VI. 
THE  PROCESS  OF  EVOLUTION. 

Objective  Mind  educates  the  Subjective  Mind.  —  Hence  the  Instinct 
of  Animals  is  exactly  proportioned  to  their  Intelligence. — 
Authorities  cited.  —  Progressive  Mental  Evolution  brought  about 
by  Development  of  Secondary  Instincts.  —  Romanes  on  Primary 
and  Secondary  Instincts.  — The  Latter  brought  about  by  "  Natural 
Selection."  —  The  Absurdity  of  that  Theory  illustrated.  —  The  Gen- 
eral Theory  of  Natural  Selection  accepted  with  Reservations, 
but  it  is  overloaded  to  an  Absurd  Degree.  —  Lamarck's  Theory 
of  "  Appetency  "  also  accepted  with  Qualifications.  —  The  Two 
Theoiies  Complementary.  —  Further  Illustration  of  the  Absurdity 
of  ascribing  Primary  Instincts  to  Natural  Selection. —A  Logical 
Axiom,  "  Never  needlessly  multiply  Causes."  —  Primary  and 
Secondary  Instincts  defined. —  They  accord  with  the  History  of 
Organic  Evolution.  —  Nevf  Environmental  Conditions  reveal 
New  Dangers.  —  These  are  at  first  intelligently  overcome.  — 
Habit  converts  the  Acts  into  Instincts  which  are  then  inherited. 
—  Natural  Selection  not  an  Original  Cause  of  New  Species.  — 
Strictly  speaking,  it  is  not  a  Law  of  Nature.  —  "  Survival  of  the 
Fittest "  an  Incident,  not  a  Law.  —  It  is  an  Effect  of  other 
Causes.  —  Natural  Selection  not  the  Origin  of  Species.  —  Natural 
Selection  is  the  Theory  of  Chance.  —  It  is  Atheistic  in  its  Last 
Analysis. —  Lamarck's  Theory.  —  It  is  a  Necessary  Factor  in  any 
Complete  Theory  of  Evolution.  —  Structural  Changes  due  to 
New  Instinctive  Impulses.  —  The  Latter  due  to  Brain  Develop- 
ment.—  Brain  Development  due  to  constantly  Increasing  Com- 
plexities of  Environment.  —  This  is  True  of  Man  as  of  the  Lower 
Animals.  — Each  Individual  Intelligence  is  the  Sum  of  all  Ances- 
tral Instincts  plus  its  Objective  Intelligence. 

IT  will  not  be  disputed  that  the  evidence  thus  far 
adduced  points  clearly  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
objective  mind  —  the  mind  of  which  the  brain  is  the 
organ  —  is  a  potent  agency  in  the  progressive  de- 


THE  PROCESS  OF  EVOLUTION.  121 

velopment  of  animal  intelligence.  It  remains  to  ex- 
amine the  process  by  which  this  development  has 
been  brought  about. 

It  has  already  been  shown  that  the  objective  mind 
is  the  educator  of  the  subjective  mind.  It  is  fitted 
for  that  office  by  virtue  of  the  fact  that  its  power  of 
inductive  reasoning  qualifies  it  to  act  intelligently  in 
an  imperfect  environment ,  for  it  possesses  the  fac- 
ulty of  judicial  discrimination.  In  saying  this  I  must 
not  be  understood  as  affirming  that  the  objective 
mind  performs  its  function  of  induction  to  the  ex- 
clusion of  instinct.  I  am  not  of  those  who  believe, 
with  Cuvier,  that  instinct  and  intelligence  stand  in  an 
inverse  ratio  with  each  other.  Darwin,  and  other 
modern  biologists,  agree,  with  Pouchet,  that  no  such 
inverse  ratio  exists.  On  the  contrary,  as  the  latter 
points  out,  "  those  insects  which  possess  the  most 
wonderful  instincts  are  certainly  the  most  intelli- 
gent."1 Again,  Darwin2  shows  that  "  in  the  verte- 
brate series  the  least  intelligent  members,  namely, 
fishes  and  amphibians,  do  not  possess  complex  in- 
stincts; and  amongst  mammals  the  animal  most  re- 
markable for  its  instincts,  namely,  the  beaver,  is  highly 
intelligent."3  In  fact,  I  do  not  know  of  a  modern 
biologist  who  does  not  now  admit  that  animals  pos- 
sessing the  most  complex  instincts  invariably  possess 
a  correspondingly  high  order  of  objective  intelligence. 
I  make  these  references  for  the  reason  that,  as  far  as 
they  go,  they  bear  me  out  in  what  I  shall  proceed  to 

1  Revue  des  Deux  Mondes,  February,  1870,  p.  690. 

2  Descent  of  Man,  p.  67. 

8  See  also  "The  American  Beaver  and  his  Works,"  by  Morgan, 
1868. 


122         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

show;  and  that  is  that  complex  instincts  and  intelli- 
|  gence  are  exactly  proportioned  to  each  other  in  all 
the  broad  realm  of  sentient  life,  beginning  with  the 
|  animal  in  which  a  brain  was  first  developed  and  end- 
ing  with  the    most   highly  endowed    human  being. 
j  This  is  true  for  the  simple  reason  that  high  intelli- 
gence and  complex  instincts  sustain  a  causal  relation 
to  each  other.  '/That  is  to  say,  in  any  given  class  or 
species,   the   more   highly   developed   the    objective 
mind  becomes,  the  more   complex  become  the  in- 
stincts;   for   the  former  is  the  cause  of  the  latter. 
And  this  is  brought  about  solely  by  the  development 
of  secondary  instincts." 

In  order  to  make  myself  clearly  understood  in  this 
connection,  I  must,  revert  to  what  has  already  been 
said  in  relation  to  the  distinction  between  primary 
and  secondary  instincts  as  laid  down  by  Romanes  and 
others.  Not  that  I  agree  with  Romanes  as  to  the  ori- 
gin of  primary  instincts,  for  his  doctrine  relegates  the 
whole  question  to  the  realm  of  chance ;  *  but  his  gen- 
eral statement  of  the  origin  of  secondary  instincts  is 
obviously  correct  as  far  as  it  goes.  He  explains 
^ their  origin  as  follows:  "  By  the  effects  of  habit  in 
I  successive  generations,  actions  which  were  originally 
intelligent  become,  as  it  were,  stereotyped  into  per- 
manent instincts."2  a~~>  l*rV4^~^~~~^-*-*'  ? 

This  is  what  Lewes3  calls  the  "lapsing  of  intelli- 
gence,"—  a  term  that  is  liable  to  mislead  in  the 
absence  of  explanation.  The  meaning  is  this  :  After 
an  intelligent  action  has  been  performed  for  a  certain 
length  of  time  it  is  converted  into  an  instinct,  and  as 

1  See  "  Mental  Evolution  in  Animals,"  p.  177.  2  Ibid 

8  Problems  of  Life  and  Mind. 


THE  PROCESS  OF  EVOLUTION.  12$ 

such  it  is  transmitted  by  inheritance,  and  succeeding 
generations  perform  the  action  automatically,  that 
is,  "  without  intelligence."  The  "  intelligence  "  has 
"  lapsed." 

As  before  remarked,  I  accept  Romanes'  general 
statement  of  the  origin  of  secondary  instincts,  or 
rather  his  definition  of  such  instincts,  because  it  is 
obviously  correct.  He  does  not,  however,  make  the 
distinction  quite  clear  between  primary  and  secondary 
instincts,  as  he  defines  the  former;  nor  does  he  give 
us  any  clue  whatever  leading  to  a  knowledge  of  the 
time  when  or  the  means  by  which  secondary  instincts 
began  to  be  developed.  His  want  of  clearness  of 
distinction  between  the  two  classes  is  well  illustrated 
in  his  selection  of  an  illustration  of  the  origin  of 
primary  instincts. 

In  order  that  I  may  be  sure  to  do  no  injustice  to 
the  learned  author,  I  will  quote  the  entire  passage 
relating  to  the  origin  and  development  of  primary 
instincts :  — 

"  The  first  mode  of  origin  consists  in  natural  selection, 
or  survival  of  the  fittest,  continuously  preserving  actions 
which,  although  never  intelligent,  yet  happen  to  have  been 
of  benefit  to  the  animals  which  first  chanced  to  perform 
them.  Thus,  for  instance,  take  the  instinct  of  incubation. 
It  is  quite  impossible  that  any  animal  can  ever  have  kept 
its  eggs  warm  with  the  intelligent  purpose  of  hatching  out 
their  contents ;  so  we  can  only  suppose  that  the  incubating 
instinct  began  by  warm-blooded  animals  showing  that  kind 
of  attention  to  their  eggs  which  we  find  to  be  frequently 
shown  by  cold-blooded  animals.  Thus,  crabs  and  spiders 
carry  about  their  eggs  for  the  purpose  of  protecting  them  ; 
and  if,  as  animals  gradually  became  warm-blooded,  some 


124         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

species,  for  this  or  for  any  other  purpose,  adopted  a 
similar  habit,  the  imparting  of  heat  would  have  become 
incidental  to  the  carrying  about  of  the  eggs.  Consequently, 
as  the  imparting  of  heat  promoted  the  process  of  hatching, 
those  individuals  which  most  constantly  cuddled  or  brooded 
over  their  eggs  would,  other  things  equal,  have  been  the 
most  successful  in  rearing  progeny ;  and  so  the  incubating 
instinct  would  be  developed  without  there  ever  having  been 
any  intelligence  in  the  matter."  1  (The  italics  are  mine.) 

It  is  difficult  to  see  how  the  learned  author  is 
enabled  to  arrive  at  the  conclusion  that  there  never 
could  have  been  "  any  intelligence  in  the  matter,"  in 
view  of  the  fact  that  the  steps  involved  in  the  educa- 
tion of  the  animal,  as  he  describes  that  process,  pre- 
suppose a  long  series  of  intelligent  observations  as 
to  the  best  conditions  of  successful  incubation,  fol- 
lowed by  the  intelligent  adoption  of  the  plan  that 
had  proved  to  be  productive  of  the  best  results,  and 
the  subsequent  stereotyping  of  that  process  into  per- 
manent instincts.  It  is  obvious  that  the  series  of 
observations  and  experiments  required  by  this  variety 
of  the  theory  of  natural  selection  would  have 
involved  the  exercise  of  far  higher  inductive  powers 
than  were  employed  in  formulating  the  theory.  The 
intense  absurdity  of  the  latter  can  be  fully  appreci- 
ated only  when  we  reflect  that  the  eggs  of  warm- 
blooded animals  require  a  definite  time  for  incubation, 
during  which  time  they  must  be  kept  at  a  given  tem- 
perature continuously.  Any  great  or  long-continued 
lapse  from  continuity  in  the  temperature  is  necessa- 
rily fatal  to  the  life  within  the  egg.  This  law  was  in 
existence  at  the  time  when  the  supposed  series  of 

1  Op.  cit.  p.  177. 


THE  PROCESS  OF  EVOLUTION.  12$ 

observations  was  being  conducted.  Every  egg  that 
was  hatched  during  that  time  was,  therefore,  sub- 
jected to  the  necessary  conditions  of  continuous  heat. 
In  the  mean  time  the  experimenters  in  various  de- 
grees of  "coddling  and  brooding"  must  have  died 
without  issue.  And  it  is  obvious  that  if  they  had 
all  been  experimenters  the  class  would  have  become 
extinct  with  the  first  generation.  The  fact  that  they 
did  not  become  extinct  is  demonstrative  that  some 
of  the  eggs  were  subjected  to  the  necessary  continu- 
ous temperature  at  the  very  beginning,  and  that  the 
process  has  been  kept  up  ever  since. 

The  only  other  supposition  that  could  possibly 
account  for  the  origin  of  the  instinct  of  incubation 
on  the  theory  of  natural  selection,  is  that  the  first 
warm-blooded  animal  that  hatched  a  brood  must  have 
"accidentally"  sat  on  her  eggs  continuously  during 
the  necessary  period  of  incubation,  say  three  weeks. 
The  word  "  accidentally  "  is  advisedly  used,  for  the 
Darwinian  theory  of  natural  selection  is  the  theory  of 
accident,  the  hypothesis  of  chance;  and  this  is  the 
theory  which  Romanes,  in  the  passage  above  quoted, 
avowedly  adopts  as  his  explanation  of  the  origin  of 
primary  instincts.  His  words  are  these:  — 

"  The  first  mode  of  origin  consists  in  natural  selection, 
or  survival  of  the  fittest,  continuously  preserving  actions 
which,  though  never  intelligent,  yet  happen  to  have  been 
of  benefit  to  the  animals  which  first  chanced  to  perform 
them." 

It  is  superfluous  to  remark  that  the  supposition 
that  the  process  of  incubation  began  by  an  "  acci- 
dental "  sitting  by  the  parent  animal  of,  say,  three 


126         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

weeks'  duration,  is  in  a  very  high  degree  improbable, 
to  employ  no  harsher  expression  in  its  characteriza- 
tion. But  the  very  last  degree  of  improbability  is 
reached  when  we  stop  to  consider  all  that  is  involved 
in  the  theory  of  accidental  incubation.  Thus,  the 
continuity  of  the  requisite  temperature  is  presup- 
posed, as  any  serious  lapse  would  be  fatal  to  the 
embryo.  This,  in  turn,  involves  a  continuous  sitting, 
which  would  be  fatal  to  the  parent,  and  must  there- 
fore be  dismissed  as  impossible.  The  only  alter- 
nate supposition  is  that  the  parent  leaves  the  nest  at 
least  once  a  day  to  procure  the  necessary  food  to 
sustain  life.  But  this,  in  turn,  involves  the  "  acci- 
dental" return  to  the  nest,  each  day,  in  time  to 
prevent  the  eggs  from  getting  cold.  Again,  if  pre- 
historic eggs  required  the  same  attention  and  ma- 
nipulation that  modern  fowls  find  it  profitable  to 
bestow  upon  those  of  current  history,  we  must  sup- 
pose that  they  required  daily  turning  over  in  the 
nest.  This,  of  course,  involves  the  supposition  that 
each  of  the  first  collection  of  prehistoric  eggs  was 
"accidentally"  turned  each  day  for  the  required 
period  of  incubation. 

Nor  is  this  all ;  for  this  congeries  of  "  accidents  " 
must,  of  necessity,  have  been  repeated  by  the  next 
generation,  and  the  next,  and  so  on  for  an  indefi- 
nite period,  before  the  acts  became  "  stereotyped 
into  permanent  instincts."  This,  however,  is  inferen- 
tial, since  our  learned  author  has  not  vouchsafed  the 
information  as  to  how  many  repetitions  of  a  favoring 
accident  are  required  to  convert  it  into  a  permanent 
instinct.  But  he  does  tell  us,  what  Darwin  had 
previously  laid  down  as  a  general  principle,  that 


THE  PROCESS  OF  EVOLUTION.  12J 

"  intelligent  actions,  after  being  performed  during 
several  generations,  become  converted  into  instincts 
and  are  inherited,  as  when  birds  on  oceanic  islands 
learn  to  avoid  man."  l  If  therefore  it  requires 
several  generations  to  convert  an  intelligent  action 
into  an  inheritable  secondary  instinct,  we  have  a 
right  to  infer  that  it  will  require  at  least  an  equal 
number  of  generations  to  convert  an  "  accident  "  into 
a  permanent  primary  instinct;  a  fortiori,  when  it  was 
developed,  as  Romanes  assures  us  the  instinct  of 
incubation  was  developed,  "  without  there  ever 
having  been  any  intelligence  in  the  matter." 

But  as  it  is  reasonably  certain  that  no  such 
series  of  "  accidents,"  with  an  indefinite  number  of 
exact  repetitions,  ever  did  or  ever  could  occur,  we 
are  driven  to  the  conclusion  that  the  learned  author 
must  hold  that  the  accidental  experience  of  one 
individual  will  be  sufficient  to  "stereotype"  the  in- 
stinct and  render  it  permanent;  and  this,  too,  in  the 
absence  of  "  any  intelligence  whatever."  But  as  that 
is  manifestly  impossible  in  the  absence  of  a  very 
high  order  of  intelligence,  it  must  be  dismissed  as 
untenable  in  fact,  as  well  as  inconsistent  with  the 
learned  author's  own  premises.  In  point  of  fact,  any 
view  that  can  be  taken  of  the  question  from  the 
standpoint  of  the  theory  of  natural  selection  in- 
volves the  predication  of  such  a  long  series  of 
"  accidents  "  that  the  mere  enumeration  of  them  is 
a  reductio  ad  absurdum. 

In  the  mean  time  I  must  not  be  understood   as 
rejecting  the  general  Darwinian  doctrine  of  natural 
selection.     Much   less   do  I   reject  the  Lamarckian 
1  Darwin,  Descent  of  Man,  p.  67. 


128         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

doctrine  of  "  appetency."  Least  of  all  do  I  sym- 
pathize with  that  spirit  of  partisanship  that  accepts 
either  theory  to  the  exclusion  of  the  other.  They 

are  both  required  —  and  much  more  besides in 

any  system  of  inductive  philosophy  that  is  capable 
of  accounting  for  all  the  facts  of  organic  and  mental 
evolution. 

What  I  object  to  is  the  attempt  of  materialism  to 
overload  any  one  theory  with  burdens  that  do  not 
belong  to  it.  It  is  in  this  spirit  that  I  have  ventured 
to  draw  attention  to  one  or  two  of  the  many  reasons 
for  rejecting  the  doctrine  that  primary  instincts  have 
their  origin  in  natural  selection.  The  illustrations  of 
the  absurdity  of  that  hypothesis  might  be  multiplied 
indefinitely  were  it  worth  while  to  do  so.  I  have 
used  the  instinct  of  incubation  as  an  illustration 
simply  because  Romanes,  by  using  it,  tacitly  admitted 
that  it  was  best  suited  to  his  purpose.  I  will  content 
myself  with  one  more  illustration. 

The  instinct  of  reproduction  is  certainly  a  primary 
instinct.  It  was  fully  developed  in  the  first  uni- 
cellular organism,  else  there  never  could  have  been 
a  second  unicellular  organism ;  and  the  process  of 
evolution  of  animal  life  would  have  ceased  at  the 
very  threshold  of  sentient  existence.  The  process  of 
reproduction  by  unicellular  organisms  is  by  fission 
or  segmentation.  That  is,  the  cell  separates  into 
two  equal  parts,  each  of  which  is  a  complete  cell, 
endowed  with  all  the  attributes  of  the  original  cell. 
Now,  in  order  to  account  for  the  origin  of  the  pri- 
mary instinct  of  reproduction  on  the  theory  of  natural 
selection,  we  must  suppose  that  an  "  accident "  hap- 
pened to  the  original  cell  resulting  in  splitting  it  in. 


THE  PROCESS  OF  EVOLUTION,  1 29 

two  in  the  middle.  Then  we  must  suppose  that  each 
half  gathered  itself  together,  took  account  of  stock, 
and  discovered — ,"  accidentally,"  of  course  —  that 
there  was  enough  left  to  constitute  a  quorum,  so  to 
speak,  and  to  complete  an  independent  organism. 
The  subsequent  steps  by  which  this  accident  was 
converted  into  a  permanent  instinct  I  leave  to  be 
decided  by  those  who  believe  that  the  theory  of 
natural  selection,  or  the  hypothesis  of  chance,  is  a 
sufficient  explanation  of  all  the  phenomena  incident 
to  the  progressive  development  of  the  organic  world. 

It  is,  however,  useless  to  waste  time  in  showing 
the  absurdity  of  supposing  that  the  instincts  of  pri- 
mordial unicellular  organisms  owed  their  origin  to 
natural  selection ;  for  I  do  not  know  that  any  biolo- 
gist of  prominence  now  seriously  entertains  that 
theory.  The  point  I  wish  to  make  is  that  since  some 
primary  instincts  of  the  most  important  character  are 
inherent  in  the  mental  organism  of  animals,  there  is 
no  valid  reason  for  supposing  that  other  primary 
instincts  owe  their  origin  to  natural  selection. 

One  of  the  primary  rules  of  scientific  investiga- 
tion is  that  we  should  never  needlessly  multiply  causes. 
That  is  to  say,  where  an  adequate  cause  of  any 
class  of  phenomena  is  known  to  exist  we  have 
neither  occasion  nor  logical  right  to  seek  other 
causes  for  the  same  or  cognate  phenomena.  Now,  we 
know  that  many  of  the  primary  instincts  are  inherent 
in  the  mental  organism  of  animals.  It  is  unneces- 
sary, therefore,  to  invoke  any  other  theory  to  account 
for  any  primary  instinct,  at  least  until  it  is  first 
shown  that  the  known  cause  is  inadequate  to  explain 
all  the  phenomena.  Until,  therefore,  the  contrary 

9 


130         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

is  demonstrated,  we  may  safely  assume  that  the 
instinct  of  incubation  in  warm-blooded  animals 
arises  from  the  same  irresistible  impulse  that  impels 
the  lower  animals  to  the  acts  of  reproduction  or 
nutrition,  or  any  of  the  other  acts  necessary  to  self- 
preservation.  It  may,  in  fact,  be  safely  assumed  to 
be  a  law  of  evolutionary  development,  in  the  absence 
of  proof  or  reason  to  the  contrary,  that  every  new 
species  evolved  is  endowed  with  primary,  that  is, 
inherent,  instincts  adapted  to  its  use  and  necessi- 
ties. Were  this  not  true,  each  new  species  would 
perish  before  "natural  selection"  could  select. 

I  have  dwelt  at  some  length  upon  this  branch  of 
the  subject  for  the  reason  that  I  desire  to  make  the 
distinction  clear  between  primary  and  secondary 
instincts.  This  has  never  been  done  heretofore; 
and  it  seems  probable  that  the  unnecessary  exploita- 
tion of  the  theory  of  natural  selection  as  an  explana- 
tion of  the  origin  of  some  of  the  primary  instincts 
has  arisen  from  the  want  of  a  clear  apprehension  of 
this  distinction.  In  point  of  fact,  in  the  hazy  atmos- 
phere of  the  old  psychologies,  it  was  impossible  to 
perceive  clearly  the  line  of  delimitation  between 
the  two  classes  of  instincts.  In  other  words,  it  was 
impossible,  under  the  old  psychology,  to  assign  a 
specific,  exclusive  cause  for  the  development  of 
secondary  instincts.  This  is  the  crucial  question, 
for  when  that  is  known  the  distinction  instantly 
becomes  apparent. 

I  have  quoted  with  approval  Romanes'  very  gen- 
eral statement  of  the  origin  of  secondary  instincts. 
Briefly  stated,  it  is  that  habit  converts  actions  that 
were  "originally  intelligent"  into  "permanent 


THE  PROCESS  OF  EVOLUTION.  131 

instincts."  But  he  does  not  tell  us  what  was  the 
specific  agency  that  enabled  animals  to  perform 
"  intelligent "  actions  that  are  so  far  distinct  from 
the  ordinary  instinctive,  automatic  actions  of 
animals  that  it  requires  generations  of  habitual 
performance  to  convert  them  into  permanent  in- 
stincts. Obviously,  there  is  a  clear  line  of  demarca- 
tion somewhere  between  the  two  distinct  classes  of 
actions;  and  that  the  classes  are  so  divergent  in 
their  nature,  so  antithetical  in  their  characteristics, 
that  it  is  impossible  to  refer  them  to  a  common 
origin. 

What  that  distinction -is,  the  intelligent  reader 
who  has  followed  me  thus  far  has  already  antici- 
pated. The  following  propositions  will  define  my 
position  with  sufficient  clearness  to  enable  the 
reader  to  perceive  the  significance  of  the  facts 
which  will  be  adduced  in  this  and  in  later 
chapters :  —  N 

1.  Primary  instincts  are  those  which  are  inherent , 
in  the__  mental  organism  of  animals  in  their  native 
environment.      They    exist    antecedent_jto    reason,  , 
experience,    or    instruction,    and  are  transmitted   to  I 
posterity   by   inheritance.  •    They   include    all    that 
were  possessed  by  animals  prior  to  the  development' 
of  a  brain  organism.  <-  p^vs^ti^V 

2.  Secondary  instincts  all    have   their  origin   in  V 
that    intelligence  of  which  the  brain  is  the  organ. 
and_are  the  result  of  the  reaction  of   that  intelli-  | 
gence  upon  a  new  or  a  changed  environment. 

3.  They  become^ permanent  instinctsjifter  being  ' 
"performed  for  several  generations,"  ajid  "are  then 
inherited,"  the  same  as  primary  instincts  (Darwin).  ^ 


132         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

It  will  now  be  seen,  by  an  examination  of  the  facts, 
that  the  distinctions  above  made  exactly  accord 
with  the  history  of  organic  evolution  as  set  forth 
by  Haeckel  and  other  great  lights  of  evolutionary 
science. 

No  such  thing  as  a  secondary  instinct  has  been 
shown  to  have  existed  prior  to  the  advent  of  animal 
life  upon  dry  land.  A  brain  did  not  exist  during 
the  primordial  epoch.  During  the  next  epoch  a 
brain  began  to  be  developed,  and,  simultaneously 
therewith,  fern  forests  appeared  upon  land,  thus 
rendering  it  habitable  for  animal  life;  and  at  the 
same  time  providing  the  material  for  the  carbonifer- 
ous strata  which  now  furnish  our  supplies  of  coal 
and  petroleum.  And  it  is  a  significant  fact  that 
it  was  during  the  carboniferous  period  "that  some 
fishes  began  to  accustom  themselves  to  live  upon 
land,  and  thus  gave  rise  to  the  amphibian  class."1 

Here,  then,  are  three  coincidental  facts  of  pro- 
found significance,  namely:  (a)  the  development  of 
a  brain;  (b)  the  development  of  conditions  favor- 
able to  the  sustentation  of  animal  life  upon  dry 
land,  and  (c)  the  advent  of  the  amphibian  class,  — 
"the  earliest  terrestrial  and  air-breathing  animals. "2 

Now,  unless  we  rest  content  to  adopt  the  hypothe- 
sis of  chance  to  account  for  these  facts,  we  must 
infer,  (i)  that  a  brain  was  developed  in  response  to 
a  rapidly  approaching  necessity  for  a  change  of 
environment ;  and  (2)  that  such  a  change  became 
possible  by  the  simultaneous  development  of  (a) 
terrestrial  conditions  rendering  it  possible  for  animal 

1  The  Evolution  of  Man,  vol.  ii.  p.  13. 

2  Op.  cit. 


THE  PROCESS  OF  EVOLUTION.  133 

life  to  be  sustained  on  dry  land,  and  (b)  a  mental 
organism  capable  of  intelligently  responding  to 
those  conditions. 

Accordingly  we  find,  as  before  remarked,  (i)  that 
a  brain  was  developed  during  the  second,  or  palaeo- 
lithic epoch;  (2)  that  during  the  middle  palaeolithic 
epoch,  or  carboniferous  period,  fern  forests  and  air- 
breathing  animals  simultaneously  appeared. 

This  was  the  first  step  in  brain  development  in 
advance  of  that  of  the  fishes.  It  was  a  small  step, 
it  is  true,  for  the  amphibia  are  but  very  little  more 
intelligent  than  their  immediate  ancestors ;  but  it  was 
the  beginning  of  a  vastly  more  rapid  development 
than  was  possible  in  a  purely  aquatic  environment. 

The  reader  is  again  referred  to  the  table  in 
Chapter  V.,  showing  the  percentages  of  time  con- 
sumed in  the  development  of  the  various  orders  and 
classes  of  animals  before  and  after  the  development 
of  a  brain. 

It  is  obvious,  at  a  glance,  that  the  constantly 
increasing  rapidity  of  development,  as  shown  by  the 
table,  must  be  a  fact  of  profound  significance.  And 
when  we  consider  it  in  connection  with  the  general 
principle  laid  down  by  Darwin  and  the  other  authori- 
ties quoted,  that  animals  possessing  the  highest 
intelligence  have  the  most  complex  instincts,  we 
are  prepared  to  understand  the  exact  function  which 
the  brain  performs  in  the  development  of  animal 
intelligence.  We  are  also  enabled  to  locate  the 
dividing  line  between  primary  and  secondary  in- 
stincts, and  to  understand  the  process  by  which  the 
latter  are  primarily  developed,  and  finally  become 
fixed  and  inheritable  attributes  of  the  mind. 


134         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE  OF  MAN. 

The   following   propositions   are,   therefore,   pro 
visionally  submitted:  — 

1.  The  "intelligent  actions"   to   which    Darwin 
*  and    Romanes   refer  as  the  bases  of  secondary   in" 
'  stincts,  are,  in  all  cases,  prompted  by  that  intelli- 
|  gence  of  which  the  brain  is  the  organ,  namely,   the 
'  objective  mind. 

2.  The  inciting  causes  of  the  activity  and  con- 
I  sequent   development  of    the  brain    intelligence  of 
\  the   lower  animals   are   changes   of    environmental 
I  conditions. 

.   &  •  !       3-    It  follows,   (a)  that  all  instincts  possessed  by 
,"     **f" animals   prior  to  the  development   of  a  brain   are 
primary   instincts;  (b)  that   all    instincts  originally 
f»       J  possessed    by   any    given    species    are,     in    effect, 
primary    instincts,   even    though   the   species  itself 
i  may  be  the  result  of  ancestral  development  of  secon- 
dary instincts,  and   (c)  that  animal   intelligence  is 
necessarily  proportioned  to  complexity  of  environ- 
|  mental  conditions. 

Enough  has  already  been  said  to  show,  prima 
facie,  that  the  first  proposition  is  true;  the  table 
alone  presenting  sufficient  a  priori  grounds  to  sus- 
tain that  theory.  If,  therefore,  the  a  posteriori 
reasons  point  to  the  same  conclusion,  the  question 
may  be  considered  as  settled.  The  three  proposi- 
tions will  be  considered  together. 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  very  evident  that  the  slow 
progress  of  development  during  the  primordial  epoch 
was  due  to  two  causes,  namely:  (i)  the  purely 
aquatic  environment,  which  allowed  but  little  varia- 
tion of  conditions;  and  (2)  the  absence  of  brain 
development,  which  alone  is  able  to  take  intelli- 


THE  PROCESS  OF  EVOLUTION.  135 

gent  advantage  of  any  variation  in  environmental 
conditions. 

The  second,  or  primary,  epoch  presented  a  new 
condition,  in  that  vegetable  life  was  developed  on 
dry  land.  But  there  was  still  only  a  limited  variety 
of  environmental  conditions.  It  was  the  age  of  fern 
forests,  —  a  gigantic  vegetal  growth  of  practically 
one  genus.  It  afforded  a  temporary  refuge  for 
some  of  the  more  highly  endowed  fishes,  and  hence 
the  gradual  development  of  the  amphibia.  But  the 
conditions  on  dry  land  at  that  time  were  even 
more  monotonous  than  in  the  sea;  and  hence  the 
inconceivably  slow  progress  of  development  of 
animal  life  and  intelligence.  It  required,  as  the 
table  shows,  more  than  thirty-two  per  cent  of  the 
time  consumed  since  the  beginning  of  organic  life 
on  this  planet,  to  develop  the  amphibia,  or,  rather, 
to  reach  a  higher  order  than  the  amphibia.  In 
other  words,  it  required  untold  millions  of  years  to 
perfect  that  step  in  the  process  of  organic  evolution, 
notwithstanding  the  fact  that  it  was  taken  in  pursu- 
ance of  an  originally  intelligent  purpose,  as  dis- 
tinguished from  an  instinctive  impulse.  It  was,  in 
fact,  when  fishes  began  to  accustom  themselves  to 
l^ve  upon  dry  land  that  the  first  step  was  taken  in 
the  development  of  a  secondary  instinct.  It  was 
the  first  intelligent  action  of  the  brain  mind  that 
has  left  its  impress  upon  the  organic  world. 

It  certainly  was  not  a  primary  instinct  that  im- 
pelled a  fish  to  abandon  its  native  element  even 
temporarily.  It  was  an  intelligent  action,  in  pur- 
suance of  an  intelligent  purpose.  It  was,  moreover, 
"an  enterprise  of  great  pith  and  moment,"  and  one 


136        THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE  OF  MAN. 

that  was  deliberately  taken,  and  often  repeated, 
through  several  generations,  before  it  was  stereo- 
typed into  a  permanent  instinct.  The  theory  of 
natural  selection  cannot  be  invoked  to  account  for 
the  beginning  of  that  instinct ;  for  it  could  not  have 
been  the  result  of  an  "accident."  It  is  a  matter  of 
common  observation  that  when  a  fish  is  accidentally 
thrown  upon  dry  land  he  loses  no  time  in  working 
his  way  back  to  his  native  element ;  and  he  is  not 
prone  to  repeat  the  experiment  of  his  own  volition. 
There  could  not,  therefore,  be  the  slightest  tendency 
toward  a  hereditary  transmission  of  terrestrial 
habits  as  the  result  of  an  accidental  or  enforced 
sojourn  upon  dry  land.  The  tendency,  in  fact, 
would  be  to  reinforce  the  primary  instinct  which 
impels  fishes  to  remain  in  their  native  element. 
We  must  therefore  exclude  accident,  or  the  ele- 
ment of  chance,  as  a  possible  factor  in  the  develop- 
ment of  that  secondary  instinct  which  brought  into 
being  and  perpetuated  the  amphibia. 

In  making  this  exclusion  we  thereby  also  exclude 
natural  selection,  or  survival  of  the  fittest,  as  the 
cause  of  the  development  of  that  particular  genus. 
And  I  may  here  remark,  parenthetically,  that  natural 
selection,  or  survival  of  the  fittest,  is  not,  properly 
speaking,  the  original  cause  of  variation  in,  or 
origin  of,  species.  I  do  not  deny  that  it  is  a  factor 
of  the  utmost  importance;  but  it  is  not  an  original 
cause.  It  is  not  even  a  law  of  nature,  strictly 
speaking;  for  natural  law  is  properly  defined  as 
"the  uniform  occurrence  of  natural  phenomena  in 
the  same  way  or  order  under  the  same  conditions." 
The  term  "survival  of  the  fittest"  does  not  describe 


THE  PROCESS  OF  EVOLUTION.  137 

a  uniform  occurrence  of  natural  phenomena.  On 
the  contrary,  it  is  made  to  cover  a  great  variety  of 
phenomena,  some  of  them  of  exactly  opposite  char- 
acter to  others.  Thus,  among  animals,  other  things 
being  equal,  those  possessing  the  greatest  strength 
are  the  ones  that  survive.  In  some  cases  it  means  a 
survival  of  the  swiftest.  Among  the  higher  animals 
it  is  often  the  most  sagacious,  as  in  man.  Among 
nations  it  was  formerly  a  question  of  numbers  and 
the  physical  prowess  of  the  private  soldier;  and  it 
was  thus  that  the  "  fittest "  to  survive  were  the  bar- 
barous hordes  that  destroyed  the  civilization  of 
ancient  Rome.  In  modern  times  the  most  skilful 
men  behind  the  biggest  guns  are  the  survivors, 
physical  strength  being  a  factor  of  the  least  impor- 
tance. As  between  savages  and  civilized  men  in 
times  of  peace,  the  fittest  to  survive  are  those  who 
require  the  least  area  of  land  from  which  to  draw 
their  sustenance.  Thus,  the  North  American  Indian 
required  a  vast  territory  to  supply  him  with  the 
necessary  game  to  enable  him  to  live;  while  his 
civilized  neighbor  could  sustain  himself  in  comfort 
on  a  few  acres  of  land.  But  in  war  the  modern 
appliances  of  warfare  place  the  savages  at  a  disad- 
vantage. As  between  different  races  living  together 
and  sustaining  peaceful  relations,  the  fittest  to  sur- 
vive may  be  the  ones  who  can  live  and  labor  on  the 
least  or  the  cheapest  food.  Thus,  the  Chinaman, 
who  can  live  on  a  handful  of  rice  per  day,  once 
threatened  to  starve  the  American  laborer  to  death, 
and  would  have  done  so  but  for  the  passage  of  laws 
restricting  Chinese  immigration.  In  that  case  the 
inferior  race  would  have  been  the  fittest,  and  he 


138         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

would  have  survived  the  wreck  of  our  civilization. 
But,  with  the  passage  of  that  law,  the  conditions  of 
survival  were  instantly  reversed;  for  our  ability  to 
enforce  that  law  depended  upon  our  superior  military 
and  naval  strength,  notwithstanding  the  disparity  in 
numbers. 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  the  so-called  law  of 
"survival  of  the  fittest"  is  not  a  law  of  nature,  but 
a  condition,  — an  incident,  and  not  a  primary  cause. 
It  is  an  effect  of  other  and  far  deeper  and  more 
important  causes. 

In  saying  this,  I  must  not  be  understood  as  seek- 

'  ing  to  eliminate  natural  selection  or  the  survival  of 
the  fittest  as  a  factor  in  the  progressive  development 

|  of  organic  life.  Far  from  it.  That  theory  is  indis- 
pensable in  any  hypothesis  which  seeks  to  account 
for  the  existence  of  the  organic  world  on  principles 

I  of  evolutionary  development.  What  I  wish  to  show 
is,  that  the  theory  is  overloaded  with  burdens  that 
do  not  properly  belong  to  it ;  but^more  particularly, 

i  that  jt__is  a  condition  the  causes  of  which  must  them- 
selves be  accounted  for  on  other  grounds  than  those 

Nset  forth  by  Darwin  and  his  followers. 

As  before  stated,  theirs  is  the  doctrine  of  chance. 
Eliminate  that  element  from  the  Darwinian  theory, 
and  there  is  little  left  of  it.  Not  that  I  would 
undertake  to  eliminate  that  factor  entirely  from  the 
process  of  evolutionary  development.  No  one  who 
has  intelligently  observed  the  progressive  develop- 
ment of  varieties  of  species  among  domestic  animals 
can  doubt  the  fact  that  the  element  of  accident  or 
chance  has  entered  very  largely  into  the  process. 
Among  breeders  of  domestic  animals  this  element 


THE  PROCESS  OF  EVOLUTION.  139 

is  largely  though  not  entirely  eliminated  by  intelli- 
gent artificial  and  sexual  selection.  But  domesti- 
cation itself  is  an  accident;  that  is  to  say,  it  is  out 
of  the  natural  order,  and  the  result  of  fortuitous 
circumstances. 

We  may,  therefore,  give  due  credit  to  the  element 
of  accident,  and  fortuitous  changes  of  environment, 
which  is  much  the  same  thing,  for  a  large  part  of 
the  phenomena  of  variation  of  species.  And  we 
may  also  give  the  theory  the  benefit  of  the  doubt  in 
many  cases  where  the  question  of  the  origin  of 
species  is  involved;  since  it  is  often  difficult  to 
determine  whether  two  given  animals  belong  to 
different  species  or  represent  extreme  variations  of 
the  same  species.  It  will  become  evident,  however, 
as  we  proceed,  that  the  element  of  chance  is  a  less 
potent  factor  in  the  origin  of  species  than  it  is  in 
the  production  of  morphological  variations;  that  it 
is  still  less  in  the  origin  of  genera  than  in  that  of 
species;  that,  in  short,  the  farther  we  go  back  in 
the  history  of  organic  evolution  the  less  potent  is 
the  element  of  chance;  and  the  more  potent  is  the 
element  of  intelligence,  that  is,  instinctive  intelli- 
gence, as  a  factor  in  the  progressive  development  of 
the  organic  world. 

Nevertheless,  we  cannot  wholly  eliminate  fortui- 
tism  at  any  given  stage;  for  it  is  obvious  that  many 
changes  .of  environmental  conditions  may  occur 
which  animal  intelligence  cannot  have  originated; 
e.  g.,  when  a  great  cataclysm  of  nature  segregates 
a  genus  or  a  species  from  the  parent  stock  or  its 
native  environment. 

This  is  somewhat  of  a  digression;  but  it  became 


140        THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

necessary  in  order  to  define  clearly  the  issue 
between  fortuitism,  which  is  the  argument  of 
Darwin,  Haeckel,  and  their  followers,  and  the  teleo- 
logical  argument  of  which  I  am  building  the  founda- 
tion out  of  their  own  materials. 

With  that  class  of  reasoners  chance  is  everything, 
—  especially  everything  of  a  causal  nature.  It  is 
veiled  under  a  multitude  of  words  of  learned  length 
and  scientific  sound ;  but  the  last  analysis  of  their 
argument  reveals  chance  as  their  ultimate  as  well 
as  their  proximate  cause.  Thus,  they  assume  that 
it  was  a  fortuitous  juxtaposition  and  final  union  of 
certain  chemical  elements  that  produced  a  living 
organism  endowed  with  a  mind  (Haeckel).  It  was 
fortuitism  that  developed  the  primary  instincts 
(Romanes).  It  was  a  series  of  accidents  that  was 
responsible  for  the  origin  of  species  (Darwin). 

It  will  now  be  seen  that  the  whole  trend  and 
tendency  of  their  argument  is  to  place  organism  in 
advance  of  intelligence,  • —  physical  structure  in 
advance  of  mind.  The  obvious  reason  for  this  atti- 
tude is,  that  the  clear,  analytical  mind  of  Darwin 
easily  foresaw  that  if  it  were  once  admitted  that 
mind  sustained,  in  any  degree  whatsoever,  a  causal 
relation  to  physical  structure,  the  admission,  carried 
to  its  legitimate  conclusion,  would  make  for  teleology 
or  theism. 

It  thus  becomes  obvious  why  Darwin  so  contemptu- 
ously rejected  the  Lamarckian  doctrine  of  appetency, 
which  was,  in  a  less  clearly  defined  form,  also  held 
by  his  own  grandfather,  Erasmus  Darwin.  The  La- 
marckian theory  is  summed  up  with  sufficient  clear- 
ness for  our  present  purpose  by  Geddes,  in  his  article 


THE  PROCESS  OF  EVOLUTION.  141 

on  "  Variation  and  Selection  "  in  the  "  Encyclopaedia 
Britannica,"  in  words  following:  — 

"  The  well-known  theory  of  Lamarck  laid  special  em- 
phasis on  function  and  environment ;  for,  though  the  sense 
of  need  in  association  with  suitable  environment  calls  out  a 
succession  of  efforts,  and  so  originates  incipient  structural 
modifications,  it  is  to  increased  functioning  that  the  in- 
crease of  these  modifications  must  be  ascribed,  while  sim- 
ilarly disuse  explains  degeneration.  Changed  conditions 
produce  new  wants,  nutritive  and  reproductive;  hence 
changes  in  climate,  or  the  like,  change  the  organism  by 
changing  its  habits.  Rapid  increase  is  checked  by  other 
organisms  :  the  strongest  and  best  armed  for  attack  devour 
the  weaker,  and  the  less  perfect  genera  are  kept  down  by 
the  more  perfect." 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  the  gist  of  Lamarck's 
theory  was  that  changes  of  physical  structure  are 
brought  about  in  response  to  impulses  from  within, 
which  impulses  arise  from  the  necessities  imposed  by 
environment.  Lamarck  illustrates  the  principle  in 
the  following  words  :  — 

"  I  conceive  that  a  gasteropod  mollusk,  which,  as  it  crawls 
along,  finds  the  need  of  touching  the  bodies  in  front  of  it, 
makes  the  effort  to  touch  those  bodies  with  some  of  the 
foremost  parts  of  its  head,  and  sends  to  these  every  time 
quantities  of  nervous  fluids,  as  well  as  other  liquids.  I  con- 
ceive, I  say,  that  it  must  result  from  this  reiterated  afflux 
towards  the  points  in  question  that  the  nerves  which  abut 
at  these  points  will,  by  slow  degrees,  be  extended.  Now, 
as  in  the  same  circumstances  other  fluids  of  the  animal  flow 
also  to  the  same  places,  and  especially  nourishing  fluids, 
it  must  follow  that  two  or  more  tentacles  will  appear  and 


142        THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE  OF  MAN. 

develop  insensibly  in  those  circumstances   on    the  points 
referred  to." 

Now,  if  it  be  objected  that  such  a  process  of  growth 
would  require  very  many  generations  to  perfect  the 
tentacles  of  a  gasteropod  mollusk,  it  may  well  be 
asked  how  long  it  would  take  to  perform  the  same 
feat  under  natural  selection?  In  other  words,  how 
many  accidents  of  a  similar  character,  occurring  in 
the  same  family,  in  successive  generations,  would 
be  required  to  endow  a  species  permanently  with 
tentacles? 

The  long  neck  of  the  giraffe  has  also  been  used  to 
illustrate  the  Lamarckian  theory;  the  necessities  of 
its  environment  and  the  nature  of  its  daily  food  re- 
quiring that  animal  to  reach  to  the  higher  branches 
of  trees  in  search  of  sustenance. 

In  view  of  the  facts  that  modern  science  has  ex- 
perimentally developed  regarding  the  unlimited  power 
of  the  subjective  mind  of  man  over  the  functions, 
sensations,  and  conditions  of  his  body,  it  requires  no 
effort  of  imagination  or  of  credulity,  no  soaring  into 
regions  of  speculative  philosophy,  to  arrive  at  the 
conclusion  that  the  active  agency  of  development 
resides  within  all  sentient  creatures ;  and  that  accident 
plays  but  a  very  subordinate  part  in  the  process  of 
organic  evolution. 

Volumes  might  be  filled  with  illustrative  experi- 
ments made  by  scientists  demonstrating  the  power  of 
the  subjective  mind  over  the  body  —  its  power  of 
modifying  function,  increasing  or  decreasing  the  cir- 
culation of  the  blood,  of  causing  or  allaying  fevers, 
of  healing  or  of  causing  lesions,  as  in  bloody  stig- 


THE  PROCESS  OF  EVOLUTION.  143 

mata  (Bernheim),  or  of  its  power  over  diseases  in 
general;  but  the  reader  must  be  referred  to  the 
current  literature  on  the  subject.  It  must  suffice  to 
remark  that  the  evidence  is  sufficient  to  warrant  the 
provisional  assumption  that  the  subjective,  or  instinc- 
tive, minds  of  animals  have  the  power  of  so  modi- 
fying the  structure  of  their  bodies  by  constant 
refunctioning  of  particular  parts,  as  to  produce,  in  the 
course  of  time,  new  organs  adapted  to  the  exigencies 
of  physical  environment. 

If  we  reason  from  the  ontogeny  of  the  individual  to 
the  phylogeny  of  the  species,  the  evidence  becomes 
conclusive  in  many  instances.  As  this  method  of 
reasoning  is  constantly  insisted  upon  by  the  ablest 
biologists  as  being  demonstrative,  we  will  cite  an 
instance  in  point.  It  is  well  known  that  some  insects, 
a  few  batrachians,  and  many  fishes  possess  the  power 
of  changing  their  colors  to  conform  to  that  of  their 
immediate  surroundings.  This  is  done  for  the  pur- 
pose of  concealment  from  natural  enemies;  and  the 
power,  especially  among  fishes,  is  wonderfully  near 
perfection.  With  some  species  a  great  variety  of 
colors  and  color  combinations  seems  to  be  at  instant 
command.  Now,  it  is  obvious  that  this  power  of  in- 
stantaneous change  is  brought  about  by  an  instinc- 
tive impulse.  It  is  an  adaptation  of  means  to  ends 
of  so  pronounced  and  varied  a  character  that  "  reflex 
action"  cannot  be  invoked  as  an  explanation.  Rea- 
soning, therefore,  from  ontogeny  to  phylogeny,  we 
must  suppose  that  the  faculty  is  the  result  of  an 
instinctive  impulse.  And  this  is  true  whether  we 
classify  the  instinct  as  primary  or  secondary.  In 
other  words,  the  impulse  which  caused  the  necessary 


144         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

structural  growth  was  from  within  ;  and  mind  preceded 
organism  and  function. 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  the  Lamarckian  doctrine 
of  appetency  is  a  necessary  factor  in  any  theory  of 
progressive  development  of  animal  life  that  is  com- 
petent to  explain  all  the  facts.  Neither  the  Darwin- 
ian theory  of  natural  selection,  nor  the  Lamarckian 
doctrine  of  appetency,  is  complete  without  the  other. 
The  latter,  indeed,  bears  a  causal  relation  to  the 
former;  and  it  explains  all  that  the  doctrine  of  nat- 
ural selection  leaves  unexplained.  Moreover,  appe- 
tency is  a  law  of  nature.  Natural  selection  is  not. 
No  amount  of  sophistry,  no  weight  of  great  names 
or  authority,  can  invest  a  series  of  accidents  with 
that  dignity.  Moreover,  a  series  of  accidents,  how- 
ever numerous  or  important,  can  neither  cause  nor 
adequately  explain  the  orderly,  progressive  develop- 
ment of  anything,  much  less  the  evolution  of  a  uni- 
verse, or  a  planet,  or  of  humanity.  It  requires  a 
law  to  do  that ;  and  to  Lamarck  is  due  the  credit  of 
having  made  a  partial  discovery  of  that  law. 

It  will  now  be  seen  that  the  true  relation  which 
Latnarckism  and  Darwinism  sustain  to  each  other  is 
this :  The  law  of  appetency  underlies  the  phenomena 
of  natural  selection.  This  will  be  further  elucidated 
in  subsequent  chapters. 

It  remains  to  explain  the  modus  operandi  of  the 
Lamarckian  law;  and  this  brings  us  back  to  the 
propositions  set  forth  just  before  the  beginning  of 
this  digression. 

Briefly  restated,  the  gist  of  the  propositions  is 
this:  Progressive  development  of  animal  intelli- 
gence, and  concomitant  structural  changes,  are 


THE  PROCESS  OF  EVOLUTION.  145 

primarily  due  to  the  constant  accretion  of  secondary 
instincts;  the  latter  being  the  result  of  the  develop- 
ment of  the  brain  intelligence,  and  this,  in  turn, 
being  due  to  a  constantly  increasing  complexity  of 
environmental  conditions.  The  latter  clause  of  the 
proposition  will  not  be  disputed  after  a  moment's 
reflection.  It  is  a  matter  of  common  experience  and 
observation  that,  other  things  being  equal,  the  culture 
and  consequent  progress  of  each  individual  depends 
largely,  if  not  wholly,  upon  environmental  conditions. 
The  mute,  inglorious  Miltons  who  people  the  country 
churchyards  differed  from  the  author  of  "  Paradise 
Lost"  only  because  of  the  difference  of  environment. 
The  farmer's  son  who  forsakes  the  parental  roof  and 
becomes  great  and  honored,  who  commands  the 
applause  of  listening  senates  or  wades  through 
slaughter  to  a  throne,  may  possess  no  more  native 
talent  than  the  brother  who  chooses  to  remain  at 
home  to  break  the  stubborn  glebe  and  inherit  the 
homely  joys  and  destiny  obscure  of  his  rude  fore- 
fathers. The  difference  is  due  to  a  changed  environ- 
ment, whether  the  change  be  the  result  of  accident, 
or  of  necessity,  or  of  deliberate  choice.  Be  that  as 
it  may,  the  fact  remains  that  the  greater  complexities 
of  the  new  environment  furnish  the  stimuli  to  that 
culture  which  constitutes  "  intelligent  adaptation." 
There  are,  of  course,  vast  differences  in  the  capacity 
of  individuals  to  adapt  themselves  to  new  environ- 
ments ;  and  it  is  this  difference  that  determines  the 
question  of  survival  of  the  fittest.  In  any  event,  it  is 
an  impulse  from  within  that  constitutes  the  motive 
power  of  progressional  development. 

The  same  rules  hold  good  in  the  realm  of  animal 
10 


146        THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

life.  It  is  a  change  of  environment  that  furnishes  the 
stimulus  to  mental  growth;  and  consequently,  the 
more  complex  the  new  environment  the  greater 
the  stimulus  and  the  more  rapid  the  progress  toward 
intelligent  adaptation  to  the  new  conditions.  And  as 
it  is  with  a  man,  so  it  is  with  an  animal :  its  ability  to 
adapt  itself  to,  and  to  take  intelligent  advantage  of, 
new  environmental  conditions,  constitutes  the  effec- 
tive factor  in  its  progressive  development. 

Now,  as  the  instinct  of  self-preservation  is  one  of 
the  two  generic  primary  instincts  common  to  all 
sentient  creatures,  it  follows  that  the  salient  features 
of  any  new  environment  in  which  one  of  the  lower 
animals  finds  itself,  and  which  stimulate  its  mental 
activity,  consist  of  new  dangers  to  be  encountered 
and  new  methods  of  obtaining  sustenance.  These 
conditions  must  be  met  intelligently,  if  at  all  success- 
fully. The  primary  instincts  which  belong  to  the 
animal  in  its  native  environment  are  useless  to  it 
when  new  dangers  are  encountered.  In  other  words, 
the  subjective  mind,  owing  to  its  limitations,  is  not 
capable  of  coping  with  new  conditions.  But  the 
objective,  or  brain,  mind  is  specially  adapted  Jto_th at 
x  exigency  ;  and  as  soon  as  it  has  learned  the  source 
of  danger,  it  intelligently  avoids  it  in  the  future. 
When  this  intelligent  action  has  been  performed  for 
a  few  generations,  it  becomes  converted  into  an 
instinct  and  is  then  inherited.  Instances  have  already 
been  citedA^ 

This,  then,  is  the  way  that  secondary  instincts  are 
created  or  evolved.  It  must  be  remarked,  in  this 
connection,  that  old  instincts  are  lost  whenever  the 
conditions  of  a  new  environment  render  them  no 


THE  PROCESS  OF  EVOLUTION.  147 

longer  useful,  as  in  the  case  of  animals  that  have  been 
domesticated. 

We  are  now  prepared  to  understand  the  full  signifi- 
cance of  the  geometrically  increasing  ratio  of  develop- 
ment of  animal  intelligence  after  a  brain  became  a 
factor  in  the  process  of  evolution.  Each  successive 
epoch  being  distinguished  by  a  constantly  augment- 
ing fauna,  the  environment  was  correspondingly 
increased  in  complexity.  As  dangers  multiplied,  the 
difficulty  of  obtaining  food  increased,  and  the  conse- 
quence was  that  sagacity  became  a  factor  of  constantly 
increasing  importance.  Even  the  larger  carnivora, 
whose  strength  and  ferocity  rendered  them  irresistible 
in  open  warfare,  were  compelled  to  resort  to  strategic 
measures  to  secure  their  prey  from  among  the 
weaker  but  swifter  or  more  sagacious  animals.  The 
latter  were  compelled  to  exercise  their  sagacity,  not 
only  in  securing  nourishment,  but  in  constantly 
guarding  against  dangers  arising  from  contact  with 
other  animals  who  were  armed  with  superior  weapons 
of  offensive  and  defensive  warfare.  Thus,  it  happens 
that,  as  Darwin  declares,  and  all  other  intelligent 
naturalists  admit  (Cuvier  excepted),  animals  possess- 
ing "  the  most  wonderful  instincts  are  certainly  the 
most  intelligent."1 

In  the  mean  time  the  Lamarckian  law  prevailed, 
each  newly  acquired  instinct  effecting  a  correspond- 
ing modification  of  physical  structure,  which,  in  the 
fullness  of  time  and  amplitude  of  development,  con- 
stituted either  new  genera  or  new  species.  Incident- 
ally, natural  selection  tended  to  preserve  those  animals 
which  were  the  most  highly  endowed,  physically  or 
1  Descent  of  Man,  p.  67. 


148         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

mentally.  In  other  words,  the  so-called  "  law  of 
survival  of  the  fittest "  is  an  incidental  result  of  that 
struggle  for  life  which  followed  the  evolution  of 
antagonistic  genera  and  species  under  the  law  of 
appetency. 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  mind  was,  in  all  cases, 
antecedent  to,  and  the  cause  of,  structural  changes. 
It  must  not  be  forgotten,  however,  that  it  was  the 
subjective,  or  instinctive,  mind  that  effected  all  pro- 
gressive development,  from  the  moneron  to  man. 
The  objective,  or  brain,  mind  is,  and  always  has  been, 
the  educator  of  the  subjective  mind.  That  is  to  say, 
by  its  intelligent  action  in  emergencies  it  constantly 
originated  new  or  secondary  instincts ;  and  these,  in 
turn,  became  a  part  of  the  subjective  mental  equip- 
ment of  the  animal,  and,  by  inheritance,  of  the 
species  to  which  it  belonged.  In  the  mean  time 
each  instinct,  primary  or  secondary,  continues  to 
form  an  inheritable  part  of  the  mental  equipment 
of  a  species  as  long  as  it  is  useful. 

/*    The  mental  equipment,  therefore,  of  each  individual 
animal,  other  things  being  equal,  comprises  the  sum- 

1   total  of  all  its  ancestral  instincts  that  remain  useful, 

J   plus  its  objective,  or  reasoning,  intelligence.     Hence 
\(    it  is  that   the    great   bulk  of  the  aggregate  of  ani- 
mal intelligence  consists  of  that  consolidated,  cor- 
related congeries  of  primary  and  secondary  instincts 
which  has  been  inherited  from  its  ancestry,  near  and 

\  remote. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

RECAPITULATION. 

Instincts  of  the  Unicellular  Organism.  —  Its  Impellent  Energy.  — 
The  Constant  Force  back  of  Evolution.  —  The  Law  is  Progress. — 
Nature's  Nwum  Organum.  —  Useful  Instincts  a  Permanent  Her- 
itage. —  Appetency  the  Effective  Agency  of  Progressive  Develop- 
ment. —  Every  Mind  Organism  a  Union  of  Elements  of  Conserva- 
tion and  Progress.  —  The  Immutability  of  Natural  Law.  —  The 
same  Laws  prevail  in  Organic  and  Mental,  Moral  and  Spiritual 
Development.  —  Primary  Instincts  the  same  in  Animals  and 
Men.  —  The  same  is  true  of  Secondary  Instincts.  —  Instinct  and 
Intuition  Identical.  —  Emotions  have  the  same  Root  and  Origin. 
—  Religious  Worship  a  Filial  Emotion.  —  Animal  Telepathy. — 
Telekinetic  Energy.  —  Objective  and  Subjective  Memory  differ- 
entiated. —  In  Men  as  in  Animals  the  Increasing  Complexities  of 
Environment  the  Spur  to  Progressive  Development.  —  In  Men  as 
in  Animals  the  Bulk  of  Intelligence  is  Subjective.  —  The  Ulti- 
mate Ego  is  the  Subjective  Entity.  —  All  that  is  worth  Preserv- 
ing in  the  Future  Life  resides  in  the  Subjective  Mind. 

THE  salient  features  of  the  processes  of  organic 
and  mental  evolution,  thus  far  developed,  may 
be  summed  up  by  way  of  recapitulation  as  follows : 
I.  The  unicellular  organism,  from  which  science 
traces  the  pedigree  of  man,  possesses,  in  common 
with  all  other  animals,  what  is  generically  termed  the 
"  instinct  of  self-preservation."  In  other  words,  it 
possesses  the  inherent,  intuitional  power  or  faculty  of 
perception,  antecedent  to  reason  or  instruction,  of  the 
essential  laws  of  its  being,  including  the  law  of  pro- 
gressive development. 


150         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

2.  This  instinctive  perception  constantly  impels  to 
acts  preservative  of  the  individual  and  of  the  species, 
including   those  which   are   promotive   of  improve- 
ment. 

3.  This  instinctive  impulse  constitutes  the  constant 
force   in  nature  which  is  the    efficient  cause  of  the 
evolution  of  all  genera  and  species. 

4.  This    constant   force    is    modified   by  environ- 
mental   conditions;    and    hence  the    infinite  variety 
and  number  of  genera  and  species. 

5.  The  law,  however,  is  progress;  and  hence  there 
was  a  constant,  though  slow  rate  of  progressive  de- 
velopment during  the  primordial  epoch,  at  the  close 
of  which  a  brain  was  developed  and  the  lowest  of 
the  vertebrata  appeared. 

6.  When  a  brain  appeared,  it  was  literally  a  novum 
orgamim  —  a  new  organ  —  of  mentation;    and,  true 
to  the  Baconian  nomenclature,  it  was  the  organ  of 
"inductive  reasoning;"  and   this  became  the  edu- 
cator of  instinct. 

7.  This  education  was  carried  o.n  by  the  intelli- 
gent   performance   of   acts    which    were    useful    or 
preservative,    which   acts   were   in    process    of  time 
converted  into  instincts  and  then  became  the  per- 
manent heritage  of  the  species. 

8.  The  objective,  or  brain,  mind  is,  therefore,  the 
agency  by  which  new  emergencies  are  met  and  new 
instincts  are  developed ;   and  the  subjective,   or  in- 
stinctive, mind  is  the  agency  by  which  the  new  or 
secondary    instincts    are    assimilated,    retained,    co- 
ordinated  with   other   faculties,   and   thus   made   of 
permanent  benefit  to  the  species. 

9.  In  the  mean  time  that  primordial  impulse  which 


RECAPITULA  TION.  1 5 1 

has  been  denominated  "  appetency,"  and  which  is  the 
effective  agency,  par  excellence,  of  progressive  de- 
velopment, is  the  inseparable  concomitant,  if  not 
indeed  an  integral  element,  of  the  instinct  of  self- 
preservation  ;  and  it  is  still  as  potential  an  element 
of  every  subjective  intelligence  as  it  was  when  the 
first  group  of  amcebae  united  to  form  a  multicellular 
organism. 

10.  It  follows  that  every  animal  intelligence  unites 
within  itself  the  elements,  not  only  for  its  own  con- 
servation, but  for  its  progressive  development;  and, 
all  being  faculties  of  the  subjective  mind,  they  are 
transmissible  by  inheritance,  and  are  consequently 
the  permanent  endowment  of  the  species  to  which 
it  belongs. 

n.  Again,  as  remarked  at  the  close  of  the  pre- 
ceding chapter,  the  mental  equipment  of  each  in- 
dividual animal,  other  things  being  equal,  comprises 
the  sum-total  of  all  its  ancestral  instincts,  primary  and 
secondary,  that  have  remained  useful,  plus  its  objec- 
tive, or  reasoning,  intelligence. 

12.  The  foregoing  considerations  are  at  once  ex- 
planatory and  confirmative  of  the  conclusion  arrived 
at  by  Pouchet  and  Morgan,  and  admitted  by  Darwin, 
that  animals  possessing  the  most  complex  instincts 
are  the  most  intelligent. 

We  are  now  prepared  to  take  one  step  further  in 
tracing  the  processes  of  evolutionary  development  of 
mind  on  this  planet. 

That  there  is  "  no  variableness  or  shadow  of  turn- 
ing "  in  the  Great  First  Cause  is  an  axiom  that  will  not 
be  disputed  by  the  theologian  who  sees  the  hand  of 
God  in  the  processes  of  evolution,  nor  by  the  materi- 


152         777^:  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

alistic  scientist  who  has  convinced  himself,  by  his 
peculiar  processes  of  "  induction,"  that  the  evolu- 
tionary development  of  physical  and  mental  organ- 
isms is  the  result  of  a  blind  operation  of  correlate 
forces  inherent  in  matter. 

Neither  of  them  should,  therefore,  be  incredulous 
when  he  is  told  that  the  same  laws  and  processes 
that  developed  the  mental  organism  of  animals,  from 
the  moneron  to  man,  are  the  active  agencies  of 
man's  progressive  development  from  primitive  sav- 
agery to  the  highest  civilization,  mental,  moral,  and 
religious. 

I  have  already  remarked  upon  the  fact  that  the 
great  bulk  of  the  intelligence  of  an  animal  is  made 
up  of  its  accumulated  ancestral  instincts  and  pro- 
pensities; the  brain  intelligence  being  merely  a  use- 
ful adjunct  specially  adapted  to  the  exigencies  of 
a  physical  environment.  This  is  obviously  true  for 
two  reasons,  namely,  the  comparatively  limited  brain, 
or  objective,  intelligence  of  animals ;  but  especially 
because  all  the  primary  instincts  and  propensities 
were  inherited  from  the  skull-less  animals  of  the 
primordial  epoch. 

Now,  if  man  is  descended  from  the  lower  animals, 
it  follows  that  the  same  is  true  of  him ;  the  only 
possible  difference  being  one  of  degree  or  of  modifi- 
cations resulting  from  environmental  conditions.  A 
few  words  will  make  my  meaning  clear. 

That  the  primary  instincts  are  shared  in  common 
by  man  and  the  lower  animals,  does  not  admit  of 
argument  or  dispute.  These  obviously  belong  to 
the  primary  intelligence,  or  the  subjective  mind, — 
the  mind  that  existed  millions  of  years  antecedent 


RECA  PITULA  TION.  1 5  3 

to  the  objective  mind,  of  which  the  brain  is  the 
organ. 

The  same  is  necessarily  true  of  the  secondary 
instincts ;  for  they  are  but  so  many  additions  to  the 
original  stock  of  primary  instincts.  All  instincts, 
therefore,  belong  to  the  subjective  mind. 

Intuition,  being  but  another  name  for  a  higher 
instinct,  also  belongs  to  the  subjective  mind;  as  also 
does  its  concomitant  faculty  of  potentially  inerrant 
deduction. 

The  "  emotions "  of  man  are  obviously  identical 
with  the  "  animal  propensities "  of  his  lower  ances- 
tors ;  and  as  they  antedate  the  brain,  they  are 
necessarily  faculties  of  the  subjective  mind.  The 
higher  emotions  of  man  being  but  the  modified,  edu- 
cated, regulated,  and  purified  emotions  or  propensi- 
ties of  the  lower  animals,  must  all  be  classed  as 
faculties  of  the  subjective  mind.  Even  the  emotion 
of  religious  worship  finds  its  root  and  origin  in  the 
intuitive  recognition  of  the  Divine  Fatherhood. 

That  the  faculty  of  telepathy  also  belongs  to  the 
subjective  mind  has  been  amply  demonstrated  by 
researches  in  experimental  psychology,  notably  those 
of  the  Society  for  Psychical  Research.  Whether 
animals  possess  that  faculty  in  such  a  degree 
as  to  be  able  to  communicate  with  each  other, 
and  if  so  to  what  extent,  are  mooted  questions  among 
scientists.  It  is,  however,  a  well-established  fact  that 
man  can  impress  certain  domestic  animals1  telepathi- 
cally.  Be  that  as  it  may,  it  may  be  set  down  as 
axiomatic  that  any  faculty  that  is  found  to  exist  in 
the  subjective  mind  of  man  necessarily  existed, 

1  See  "  The  Law  of  Psychic  Phenomena,"  chapter  ix. 


154         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE  OF  MAN. 

potentially  at  least,  in  the  minds  of  his  ancestry, 
near  and  remote.  It  is,  in  fact,  upon  this  fundamen- 
tal truth  that  the  vitality  of  evolutionary  processes 
depends. 

Telekinetic  energy,  which  has  been  variously  des- 
ignated as  psychic  force  (Sir  William  Crookes), 
ectenic  force  (Professor  Thury),  and  telekinesis 
(Professor  Coues),  is  demonstrably  a  power  or  faculty 
of  the  subjective  mind.  This  is  true  whether  we 
attribute  its  phenomena  to  the  embodied  or  to  the 
disembodied  souls  of  men.  This,  I  scarcely  need  to 
remark,  is  the  power  to  move  ponderable  bodies 
without  physical  contact  or  mechanical  agencies.  I 
shall  have  more  to  say  of  this  force  hereinafter.  It 
is  mentioned  here  only  to  complete  the  list  of  sub- 
jective faculties  as  set  forth  in  the  tabular  statement 
in  Chapter  II.,  to  which  the  reader  is  again  referred. 
In  the  mean  time  I  ask  the  reader  to  accept  the  state- 
ment, provisionally,  that  telekinetic  energy  belongs 
wholly  to  the  subjective  mind. 

I  have  reserved  the  faculty  of  memory  for  the  last, 
because  it  is  shared  by  the  objective  mind.  More- 
over, it  is  the  only  faculty  that  is  shared  by  the  two 
minds.  But  the  points  of  differentiation  are  so  -nu- 
merous and  so  radical  that  they  must  be  considered 
separately. 

The  memory  of  the  objective  mind  is  merely  the 
concomitant  of  induction,  the  latter  being  the  only 
faculty  belonging  exclusively  to  the  objective  mind. 
As  induction  presupposes  facts  to  reason  from,  its 
organ  is  necessarily  endowed  with  a  memory.  But, 
like  every  other  physical  organ,  the  brain  has  its 
limitations  of  power,  and  these  are  extended  by 


RECA  P ITU  LA  T1ON.  1 5  5 

exercise  and  cultivation.     Cerebral  anatomists  tell  usv 
that  a  new  brain  cell  is  created  for  every  new  objec-  ' 
tive    experience.     These   cells,   therefore,    constitute  ' 
receptacles  for  brain  memories;  and  their  efficiency  '  £'../. 
depends  upon  constant  or  frequent  refunctioning.     If  '  v-  <J , 
that    is    neglected,    the    cell    necessarily    atrophies,     *^- 
precisely   as  every  other   physical    organ    atrophies 
for  lack  of  exercise.     Hence  the  so-called  imperfec-     t~  ' 
tion,  or  evanescent  character,  of  the  memory  of  the  '*•> 
objective    mind.     Hence,  also,  the   common    obser-  / 
vation   that  _our   stock   of   knowledge   is   measured 
by  what  we   remember  and  not  by  what  we  have^. 
learned. 

This  is  eminently  true  of  both  minds ;  but  as  the 
subjective   mind  is  not  dependent  for  its  continued 
existence  nor  for  its    efficiency  upon    any  physical 
organ  or  organism,  its  memory  does  not  depend  upon 
the  continued  refunctioning  of  brain  cells,  nor,  indeed, 
of  those  of  any  other  physical  organ.     Its  memory 
is  therefore  an  inherent  power  or  faculty  which  defies 
the  analysis  of  the  physicist,  and  cannot  be  eliminated 
with  the  scalpel.     The  subjective  mind,  therefore,  is  \ 
literally  the  "  storehouse  of  memory,"  for  it  retains  I 
and  assimilates  everything  that  the  objective  mind  ' 
acquires,  besides  much  of  what  the  latter  has  never 
consciously  possessed.    ^  r  '  ^o^J.  -v-^*—^  ^  Jo^~4s. 

Nor  are  these  all  of  the  memorial  possessions  of  the 
subjective  mind.     As  we  have   already  seen  in  dis-i 
cussing  animal  instinct,  whenever  an  action  becomes  I 
instinctive    it  is   transmitted    by  inheritance    to   the 
posterity  of  the    animal,   and    it  is  retained  as   the 
heritage  of  all  future  generations  so  long  as   it  re-  ^ 
mains  useful  to  the  species.     This  being  true  alike  of 


156         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

primary  and  secondary  instincts,  it  follows  that  the 
subjective,  or  instinctive,  mind  of  each  animal  is  a 
storehouse,  not  only  of  memories  of  individual 
experiences,  but  of  all  its  ancestral  experiences  that 
remain  useful.  That  the  same  proposition  is  true  of 
man's  subjective  mind  it  needs  no  argument  to  sus- 
tain. Nor  must  we  lose  sight  of  the  correlative  fact, 
which  all  intelligent  naturalists  now  admit,  that  the 
higher  the  intelligence  of  animals  the  more  complex 
are  their  instincts ;  and  that  the  same  is  necessarily 
true  of  man.  Then,  when  we  reflect  that  the  range 
and  complexity  of  man's  instinctive  intelligence  are 
constantly  augmented  by  the  multiplying  variations 
of  his  environmental  conditions  incident  to  the  pro- 
gressive development  of  civilization,  which  in  turn  is 
constantly  creating  new  wants  and  necessities  of 
existence,  physical,  mental,  moral,  and  spiritual,  and 
as  constantly  revealing  correlative  dangers  to  be 
avoided  or  overcome,  we  may  begin  to  realize  how 
infinitely  complex  must  be  the  instincts  of  man  when 
compared  with  those  of  the  most  intelligent  of  the 
lower  animals. 

Again,  as  with  the  lower  animals,  so  with  man, 
acquired  or  secondary  instincts,  together  with  pri- 
mary instincts,  are  transmitted  by  descent,  and 
rernain  as  hereditaments  of  the  species  sq_long  jis 
they  remain  useful.  It_f°^ows  that  with  man  as  with 
animals,  the  subjective  mind  is  the  storehouse  of 
ancestral  memories ;  and  when  we  add  to  these  the 
perfect  memory  of  individual  experiences  and  of 
acquired  knowledge,  however  superficially  it  may 
have  been  impressed  upon  the  objective  mind,  we 
may  begin  to  approach  a  realization  of  what  a  vast 


RECAPITULA  TION.  157 

storehouse  of  latent  memorial  intelligence  is  the  sub- 
jective mind  of  the  average  civilized  man. 

It  will  now  be  seen  that  it  is  true  of  man  as  it  is  of 
the  lower  animals,  that  the  great  bulk  of  his  intel- 
ligence is  resident  in  the  subjective  mind.  The 
psycho-physical  faculty  of  inductive  reasoning  con- 
stitutes the  only  exception ;  and  that  faculty,  as  I 
have  often  repeated,  is  simply  a  highly  specialized 
faculty  which  is  the  function  of  a  highly  differentiated 
physical  organ,  and  is  especially  adapted  to  serve  as 
a  temporary  guide  through  the  mazes  of  a  physical 
environment.  But  it  is  no  more  a  permanent  faculty' 
of  the  ultimate  Ego  than  is  any  other  physical  func- 
tion, and  for  precisely  the  same  reason  :  it_  would_be 
.useless  in  any  other  than  a  physical  environ m en t. 
In  dealing  with  the  subjective  mind  of  man,  there- 
fore, we  are  dealing  with  all  that  goes  to  make  up  the 
real  man,  all,  indeed,  that  could  contribute  to  a  per- 
fect manhood  in  an  environment  of  truth.  We  are 
dealing  with  all  of  man  that  can  possibly  survive  the 
dissolution  of  the  physical  investiture,  —  all  that  is 
worth  preserving  for  the  future  life.  But  it  must  not 
be  forgotten  that  we  are  also  dealing  with  an  entity 
whose  every  faculty  is  essential,  ajuLjs  moreover 
ejsrjecially  adapted,  to  the^ existence  of  a  disembodied 
j>oul  in  an  environment  of  perfect  truth.1 

It  remains  to  inquire  how  this  entity  has  been 
developed  since  man  appeared.  This  inquiry  will 
necessarily  include  the  evolution  of  civilization  from 
savagery,  and  incidentally  of  the  evolution  of  man  as 
a  moral  and  religious  being.  This,  of  course,  is  a 

1  For  a  full  discussion  of  this  branch  of  the  general  subject,  see 
"  A  Scientific  Demonstration  of  the  Future  Life." 


158         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

vast  subject,  to  treat  which  exhaustively  would  re- 
quire many  volumes.  I  shall  therefore  be  com- 
pelled to  content  myself  with  a  brief  generalization, 
my  principal  object  being  to  state  the  general  psy- 
chological principles  involved  in  the  process  of 
development. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

THE  TWO   GREAT   GENERIC    INSTINCTS. 

The  Simplicity  of  Nature's  Laws.  —  Evolution  no  Exception.  —  Two 
Instincts  responsible  for  all  the  Phenomena  of  Evolutionary 
Development.  —  Self-Preservation  and  the  Instinct  of  Evolution  : 
one  Conservative,  the  other  Progressive  and  Creative.  —  Nat- 
ural Selection  not  a  Law,  but  an  Incident.  —  Evolutionary 
Instinct  a  Constant  Force. —  It  is  also  Altruistic  in  all  its  Im- 
pulses. —  Illustrations  from  Every-Day  Life.  —  Fallacies  of  the 
Old  Philosophies.  —  They  refer  Everything  to  Instinct  of  Self-Pres- 
ervation.  —  With  them  ail  Virtue  or  Benevolence  a  Sublimated 
Form  of  Selfishness. —  Herbert  Spencer's  Philosophy  of  Utilitari- 
anism.—  Pure  Selfishness.  —  Altruistic  Acts  the  most  Pleasur- 
able, because  in  Harmony  with  the  Strongest  Instinct.  —  Pri- 
mordial Altruism.  —  The  Creative  Energy  Inherent  in  all  Sentient 
Creatures.  —  Human  Character  determined  by  Relative  Develop- 
ment of  the  Two  Instincts.  —  Altruistic  Impulses  Predominant  in 
the  World. — Welfare  of  Future  Generations  the  Incentive. — 
Schools,  Colleges,  Churches,  and  Eleemosynary  Institutions,  are 
Examples. — Altruistic  Instinct  Stronger  than  Instinct  of  Self- 
Preservation,  otherwise  there  could  be  no  Progress.  —  The  most 
Altruistic  Governments  the  most  Progressive,  and  the  People  the 
most  Patriotic  and  Brave  and  Warlike  and  Humane.  —  Progress 
toward  Universal  Altruism  Constant  and  Rapid.  —  Atavistic  and 
Degenerate  Nations. — Their  Decadence.  —  Central  Ideas  of 
Evolutionists  and  Christian  Theism  harmonized.  —  The  Evolu- 
tionary Instinct  the  Impellent  Energy  of  Physical,  Mental,  Moral, 
and  Religious  Progress. 

IT  is  a  common  remark  that  the  laws  of  nature 
are  simple  to  the  last  degree.  This  is  literally 
true,  at  least  in  the  sense  that  they  can  generally  be 
formulated  in  terms  that  are  easily  understood.  The 
law  of  organic  evolution  constitutes  no  exception  to 
this  rule.  Indeed  it  furnishes  one  of  the  most  strik- 


160        THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE  OF  MAN. 

ing  illustrations  of  it ;  for  it  will  be  found  upon  the 
last  analysis  that  every  step  in  organic  evolution, 
every  advance  in  the  evolution  of  civilization,  every 
step  in  mental,  moral,  or  spiritual  development,  are 
directly  referable  to  two  primordial  instincts.  The 
first  is  the  instinct  of  self-preservation,  and  the  second 
is  that  to  which  the  Lamarckian  philosophers  have 
given  the  very  inadequate  title  of  "  appetency."  The 
term  was  doubtless  expressive  of  all  that  it  was  in- 
tended to  embrace ;  but,  for  reasons  which  will  appear 
later  on,  it  is  inadequate  to  express  all  that  it  implies. 
I  shall  provisionally  designate  it  as  the  evolutionary 
instinct,  and  define  it  as  the  instinct  which  impels  the 
organic  world  onward  in  the  path  of  progressive 
development.*  A  moment's  reflection  will  make  it 
clear  that  without  such  an  instinct  there  could  be  no 
real  progress  in  the  organic  world.  The  instinct  of 
self-preservation  is  merely  the  conservator  of  existing 
conditions,  and  is  destitute  of  a  single  impulse  toward 
progress.  It  is  purely  self-regarding  and  conserva- 
tive ;  and  with  that  alone  as  a  motive  force  the  pro- 
cess of  organic  evolution  would  have  been  arrested 
at  the  threshold  of  sentient  existence.  The  monera 
would  have  remained  in  the  mass  for  all  time;  for  in 
the  absence  of  the  progressive  impulse  there  would 
have  been  no  incentive  to  reproduction. 

The  term  "  evolution  "  is  expressive  of  a  series  of 
progressive  changes,  or  a  process  of  progressive 
development.  That  it  is  a  law  of  nature  no  one 
will  gainsay.  Being  a  law  of  nature,  it  presupposes 
a  constant,  impellent,  antecedent  force  or  energy 
inherent  in  each  individual  organism  that  is  subject 
to  the  law.  The  only  possible  alternative  hypothe- 


THE   TWO   GREAT  GENERIC  INSTINCTS.     l6l 

ses  are  miracle  and  chance;  and  either  one  would 
remove  the  subject-matter  outside  the  domain  of 
law.  The  former,  of  course,  cannot  be  considered 
in  a  scientific  treatise.  The  latter  can  only  be 
treated  as  a  possible  factor;  but  it  is  merely  inci- 
dental and  always  subordinate.  Accidents  may,  and 
constantly  do,  happen ;  and  an  accident  may  modify 
or  control,  favorably  or  otherwise,  the  orderly  se- 
quence of  events  naturally  arising  from  a  constantly 
operative  antecedent  cause.  But  neither  an  acci- 
dent nor  the  result  of  an  accident,  however  fre- 
quently the  former  may  be  repeated  or  however 
uniform  or  beneficent  may  be  the  latter,  can  ever 
be  elevated  to  the  dignity  of  a  law  of  nature. 
The  same  may  be  said  of  incidents  happening  in 
the  regular  course  of  things,  for  they  are  always 
subordinate  to  the  main  purpose.  And  this  is  the 
best  that  can  be  said  of  the  so-called  law  of  natural 
selection,  or  the  survival  of  the  fittest.  It  is  inci- 
dental to  the  law  of  evolution  ;  it  is  not  the  law  itself. 
It  occurs  in  the  natural  order  of  progressive  devel- 
opment ;  but  it  does  not,  of  itself,  constitute  the  pro- 
cess of  development.  It  is,  indeed,  an  indispensable 
concomitant  of  the  process.  But  it  is  preservative, 
not  causative. 

This,  indeed,  is  all  that  Darwin  himself  claimed  for 
natural  selection.  "  It  implies  only  the  preservation 
of  such  variations  as  arise  and  are  beneficial  to  the 
being  under  its  conditions  of  life,"  1  are  his  words. 
The  rest  was  left  to  chance.  Romanes  adopts  nat- 
ural selection  as  his  theory  of  the  origin  of  primary 
instincts,  as  I  have  pointed  out  in  a  previous  chapter, 

1  Origin  of  Species,  p.  99. 
II 


1 62         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

and  distinctly  relegates  everything  to  chance.  As  I 
have  before  intimated,  I  do  not  object  to  the  theory 
of  natural  selection  when  considered  solely  as  the 
preservative  element  of  organic  evolution.  But  the 
theory,  as  set  forth  by  its  author  and  his  followers, 
presupposes  the  "  variations,"  or  structural  changes, 
to  arise  from  chance,  and  not  from  any  instinctive 
impulse  due  to  the  necessities  of  the  being  under 
its  environmental  conditions.  The  Darwinian  theory 
is,  therefore,  conspicuously  inadequate  as  an  expla- 
nation of  the  most  important  part  of  the  process 
of  organic  evolution.  It  is  wholly  negative  in  its 
character  and  scope,  in  that  it  fails  to  point  out 
that  positive,  constant  force  or  energy  that  could 
alone  entitle  it  to  a  place  in  the  category  of  ascer- 
tained laws  of  nature.  This  omission,  as  I  have 
already  repeatedly  pointed  out,  is  supplied  by  the 
Lamarckian  doctrine  of  "  appetency,"  or,  as  I  have 
designated  it,  the  "  evolutionary  instinct." 

The  theory  of  evolution,  however,  can  be  simpli- 
fied to  the  last  degree  and  rendered  adequate  to  the 
explanation  of  all  the  facts  by  assuming  the  evolu- 
tionary instinct  to  be  simply  correlative  to  the  in- 
stinct of  self-preservation.  The  latter  has  been 
grievously  overloaded  by  the  philosophic  world, 
and  forced  to  perform  duties  that  were  utterly  for- 
eign to  the  purposes  of  its  existence.  By  a  system 
of  logical  legerdemain  it  has  been  made  to  pose  in 
the  guise  of  altruism,  whereas  altruism  is  its  abso- 
lute opposite.  It  has  been  burdened  with  the  care 
of  the  family,  the  tribe,  the  state,  and  the  nation, 
and  charged  with  the  duty  of  promoting  progress ; 
whereas  it  is  at  best  but  the  conservator  of  that 


THE   TWO  GREAT  GENERIC  INSTINCTS.     163 

which  ministers  to  self.  It  is,  therefore,  purely 
negative  in  its  character;  for  it  is  utterly  destitute 
of  that  positive  energy  which  makes  for  progress. 
That  energy  is  supplied  by  the  instinct  of  evolu- 
tion. And  it  is  only  by  including  that  as  one  of 
the  primordial  instincts,  and  as  merely  a  concomi- 
tant of  the  instinct  of  self-preservation,  that  a  theory 
of  evolution  can  be  formulated  that  will  account  for 
all  the  facts. 

This  instinct,  broadly  speaking,  is  the  impulse 
toward  improvement,  as  distinguished  from  the  im- 
pulse to  preserve.  In  the  lower  animals  it  was 
expended  largely  in  the  improvement  of  physical 
structure  as  a  means  of  ameliorating  the  conditions 
of  environment.  In  man  it  lies  at  the  root  of  all 
efforts  toward  improvement  and  progress  in  every 
department  of  human  activity.  It  is,  in  short,  that 
constant,  impulsive  force  or  energy  which  renders 
every  normal  human  being  unsatisfied  with  present 
conditions.  Its  absence  in  any  field  of  human  en- 
deavor leads  to  stagnation,  arrested  development, 
senile  conservatism,  and  consequent  atrophy.  It 
is  the  impulse  that  leads  every  man  to  accumulate 
the  means,  not  only  to  better  his  own  condition, 
but  to  give  his  children  greater  advantages  than  he 
himself  possessed.  Abnormally  developed,  it  leads 
to  hoarding  useless  wealth  without  reference  to  pos- 
terity. It  is  the  impulse  that  leads  the  civilized 
municipality,  state,  or  nation  to  establish  educa- 
tional institutions  for  the  benefit  of  posterity.^  It 
is  the  impulse  that  leads  to  legislation  for  the 
encouragement  of  enterprise  and  for  the  gradual 
improvement  of  moral  and  social  conditions.  Its 


1 64         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

f  abnormal  development  breeds  those  impractical  re- 
,  formers  who,  forgetting  that  the  salient  evils  of 
society  are  the  expressions  of  the  defects  of  com- 
mon humanity  as  it  exists  for  the  time  being,  seek 
to  enforce  their  peculiar  notions  of  morality  by  leg- 
..  islation.  It  is  the  impulse  that  leads  the  enlight- 
ened nations  of  the  earth  to  expand  the  area  of 
Christian  civilization,  and  to  extend  to  other  less 
favored  peoples  the  blessings  of  good  government. 
In  a  word,  it  lies  at  the  root  of  all  missionary  effort, 
whether  of  individuals,  of  societies,  or  of  nations. 

Without  further  illustration  it  will  readily  be  seen 
that  this  instinct  may  also  be  appropriately  desig- 
nated as  the  altrtiistic  instinct ;  for  its  every  normal 
manifestation  is  for  the  benefit  of  others,  especially  for 
future  generations. 

It  is  the  concomitant  of  the  instinct  of  self-preser- 
vation ;  but  that  they  are  not  identical  is  evidenced 
by  the  fact  that  one  may  be  manifested  to  the  exclu- 
sion of  the  other.  Thus,  some  insects  end  their  lives 
with  the  act  of  reproduction ;  while  some  fishes  will 
devour  their  own  offspring  to  satisfy  their  hunger  if 
not  prevented  by  their  mates.  Some  men  and  wo- 
men will  starve  themselves  for  the  sake  of  giving 
their  children  an  education  and  a  start  in  life  superior 
to  their  own  ;  while  others  will  starve  their  children 
for  the  sake  of  hoarding  money  for  the  gratification 
of  their  own  wants  and  appetence.  In  a  word,  the 
instinct  of  self-preservation  is  just  what  its  designa- 
tion indicates,  and  nothing  more.  It  is  conserva- 
tive, not  progressive  ;  it  is  preservative,  not  creative ; 
it  is  selfish,  not  altruistic.  Normally  the  two  in- 
stincts harmonize  with  beneficent  results,  for  they 


THE    TWO   GREAT  GENERIC  INSTINCTS.     165 

supplement  and  balance  each  other;  but  under 
abnormal  conditions  one  may  predominate  to  the 
exclusion  of  the  other. 

In  the  mean  time  philosophers  and  scientists  have, 
from  time  immemorial,  conspired  to  overload  the  in- 
stinct of  self-preservation  with  burdens  that  do  not 
belong  to  it.  Thus,  it  is  a  common  observation  that 
all  human  actions,  in  their  last  analysis,  are  prompted 
by  pure  selfishness,  the  substratum  of  which  is  the 
instinct  of  self-preservation.  By  a  subtle  process 
of  reasoning  they  have  sought  to  refer  to  that  instinct 
the  care  of  the  parent  for  the  child,  the  love  of 
husbands  and  wives,  the  love  of  the  patriot  for  his 
country,  the  love  of  the  philanthropist  for  humanity, 
the  love  of  humanity  for  God.  In  short,  they  have 
sought  to  eliminate  every  virtue  from  the  human 
soul,  or  to  degrade  it  to  the  dismal  level  of  sordid 
selfishness.  Even  Christian  philosophers  have  some- 
times been  misled  by  the  plausible  character  of  the 
reasoning,  and  some  have  adopted  it  on  the  score 
of  its  primal  "  simplicity."  They  have  even  sought 
to  show  forth  the  wisdom  of  God  in  thus  being  able 
to  convert  the  most  inherently  selfish  instinct  into  an 
instrument  for  the  promotion  of  the  purest  altruism. 
It  is  a  "  simple"  proposition,  it  is  true,  but  to  attempt 
to  demonstrate  its  truth  logically  involves  a  strain  that 
reason  itself  is  not  able  to  endure.  One  would  sup-r 
pose  from  such  reasoning  that  God  was  limited  in  his 
supply  of  instincts,  since  one  is  made  to  subserve  so 
many  antagonistic  purposes.  Besides,  if  it  is  true 
that  what  we  call  altruism  is  but  selfishness  in  another 
form,  it  is  still  selfishness  and  not  altruism.  There- 
fore altruism  does  not  exist.  The  same  is  true  of  all 


1 66        THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE  OF  MAN. 

other  so-called  virtues,  according  to  their  reasoning. 
Therefore  virtue  does  not  exist ;  and  all  the  so-called 
virtues  of  the  human  soul  are  reduced,  in  their  ulti- 
mate analysis,  to  the  level  of  that  instinct  that  causes 
a  cornered  rat  to  fight  for  its  life. 

This  is  a  rough  but  truthful  way  of  stating  the 
ultimate  conclusion  of  those  philosophers  who  hold 
that  the  one  instinct  of  self-preservation  is  sufficient 
to  account  for  all  the  phenomena  of  organic  and 
mental  and  moral  evolution.  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer 
is,  perhaps,  the  most  illustrious  example.  This 
great  philosopher  labors  through  many  pages  of 
subtle  analysis  to  the  conclusion  that  "  every  altruistic 
feeling  needs  the  corresponding  egoistic  feeling  as 
an  indispensable  factor." 1  I  do  not  quote  this  pas- 
sage for  the  purpose  of  controverting  his  premises 
or  this  specific  conclusion ;  for  it  is  but  another  way 
of  saying  that  benevolent  actions  are  productive  of 
pleasurable  emotions  in  the  mind  of  the  benefactor. 
Nobody  can,  or  will,  dispute  that  proposition  ;  for  it  is 
but  a  specific  statement  of  a  great  truth,  namely,  that 
to  the  normally  constituted  human  being  it  is  more 
pleasurable  to  do  right  than  it  is  to  do  wrong.  Hu- 
manity would  be  in  a  pitiable  condition  if  the  oppo- 
site were  true  ;  that  is,  if  every  virtuous  action  were 
productive  of  painful  instead  of  pleasurable  emo- 
tions. Doubtless  many  of  them  are ;  but  that  is 
merely  incidental  to  the  process  of  evolutionary  de- 
velopment, and  not  a  general  law.  The  law  is  that 
the  normal  human  being  derives  more  pleasure  from 
doing  right  than  he  does  from  doing  wrong.  This 
being  true,  while  it  tends  to  confirm  Mr.  Spencer's 

1  Principles  of  Psychology,  vol.  ii.  2,  part  be.,  p.  616  (Corollaries.) 


THE   TWO   GREAT  GENERIC  INSTINCTS.     1 67 

specific  conclusion  above  quoted,  it  completely  dis- 
proves his  general  conclusion,  which  is  that  all  pro- 
gressive development,  mental,  social,  moral,  and 
altruistic,  is  brought  about  by  natural  selection.  In 
the  chapter  above  quoted  from,  he  distinctly  says  that 
"  the  altruistic  sentiments  adjust  themselves  to  the 
modes  of  conduct  that  are  permanently  beneficial."  1 
This,  of  course,  is  natural  selection,  pure  and  simple; 
besides  being  a  reduction,  in  specific  terms,  of  the 
highest  and  purest  altruism  to  a  purely  utilitarian 
basis. 

Now,  no  one  will  deny  the  proposition  that  the 
greatest  pleasure  that  any  sentient  being  can  expe- 
rience arises  from  the  performance  of  those  acts 
which  are  prompted  by,  or  are  in  harmony  with,  the 
natural  instincts.  Moreover,  the  pleasure  experi- 
enced is  directly  proportioned  to  the  strength  of  the 
instinct.  It  needs  no  argument  to  sustain  these 
propositions. 

If  therefore  it  is  true,  as  Mr.  Spencer  holds,  that 
the  altruistic  acts  of  highly  developed  human  beings 
are  the  most  pleasurable  that  they  can  experience,  it 
follows  that  those  acts  are  prompted  by,  or  are  in 
harmony  with,  the  strongest  instinct  with  which 
sentient  creatures  are  endowed,  not  excepting  the 
instinct  of  self-preservation.  But  this  conclusion  is 
the  exact  opposite  of  that  to  which  Mr.  Spencer's 
premises  lead.  His  theory,  being  based  upon  the 
principle  of  natural  selection,  is  that  altruism  is  de- 
veloped, not  in  harmony  with  any  natural  instinct, 
but  by  an  intelligent  adjustment  to  such  modes  ot 
conduct  as  have  been  found  to  be  "permanently 

1  Op.  cit.  p.  618  etseg. 


168         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

beneficial."  This,  of  course,  is  brought  about  in 
defiance  of  the  natural,  selfish  instincts,  including 
that  of  self-preservation;  otherwise  it  must  be  by 
some  sort  of  transformation  of  the  inherently  selfish 
instincts  into  purely  unselfish  emotions.  This  can 
be  done  only  by  a  process  of  logical  legerdemain, 
and  in  utter  disregard  of  the  plainest  facts  of  organic 
and  mental  evolution. 

I  have  before  spoken  of  the  alleged  "simplicity" 
of  the  theory  that  the  selfish  instincts  are  thus  trans- 
formed ;  but  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  it  can  be  held 
to  be  simple  except  in  the  statement  of  the  propo- 
sition, since  it  involves  a  palpable  contradiction  in 
terms  and  a  logical  difficulty  that  is  absolutely  in- 
surmountable. The  proverbial  simplicity  of  nature's 
laws  does  not  involve  contradictions,  either  in  fact 
or  in  logic;  and  the  twin  theories  that  altruism 
originates  in  the  purely  selfish  instincts,  and  that 
altruism  is,  in  fact,  pure  selfishness,  mitigated  only 
by  the  incidental  circumstance  that  it  benefits  some- 
body else,  is  a  contradiction  as  gross  and  palpable 
as  ever  entered  into  the  philosophy  of  materialism. 
They  properly  belong,  however,  to  that  system  of 
philosophy  which  seeks  to  eliminate  intelligence 
from  the  universe  as  a  causative  agency,  and  to 
relegate  everything  to  chance  or  natural  selection. 

I  have  already  shown  that  Darwin's  theory  of 
natural  selection  is  incomplete  and  inadequate  to 
explain  all  the  facts  of  organic  evolution.  The 
same  remarks  apply  to  mental  and  moral  evolution, 
—  the  evolution  of  civilization.  That  is  to  say, 
natural  selection  is  an  incidental  factor  in  the  pro- 
cess; but  it  is  inadequate  as  an  explanation  of  the 


THE   TWO  GREAT  GENERIC  INSTINCTS.     l6g 

whole  process,  because  it  is  not  a  constant  force 
tending  always  in  the  one  direction.  Such  a  force, 
constant  and  ever  progressive,  we  find  in  the  evo- 
lution of  animal  life,  and  it  has  been  named  "appe- 
tency." But  that  instinct  obviously  warrants  a 
broader  generalization,  which,  in  turn,  suggests  the 
necessity  for  a  new  name.  I  have  ventured  to  call  it 
the  "evolutionary  instinct."  But  even  this  does  not 
express  all  of  its  potentialities.  It  may  be  de- 
scribed, however,  in  general  terms,  by  saying  that  it 
is  the  instinct  that  impels  all  sentient  creatures  to  the 
performance  of  acts  which  inure  to  the  benefit  of  the 
species  and  of  future  generations. 

This,  of  course,  includes  the  act  of  reproduction; 
for  that  pertains  exclusively  to  future  generations. 
It  includes  the  care  of  the  young,  for  the  same 
reason.  It  includes  those  impulses  which  result  in 
the  progressive  development  of  the  physical  struc- 
ture, and  which  evolutionists  have  denominated 
"appetency,"  for  they  also  inure  to  the  benefit  of 
the  species  and  of  future  generations. 

Here  it  must  be  remarked  of  these  three  primordial 
instincts  or  impulses :  — 

First,  that  the  instinct  of  reproduction  in  animals 
is  independent  of  the  instinct  of  self-preservation ; 
and  in  the  human  race  the  two  instincts  are  often  in 
direct  antagonism,  as  in  cases  of  over-population. 

Secondly,  that  the  impulse  which  leads  to  the 
care  of  the  young  is  also  independent  of  the  instinct 
of  self-preservation;  and  is  often  in  antagonism  to 
it,  as  in  cases  where  the  parent  sacrifices  her  own 
life  for  the  preservation  of  her  offspring. 

A   corollary  of    these    propositions   is   that   the 


1 70        THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

primordial  instinct  which  cares  for  the  welfare  of 
the  species  and  of  future  generations  is  normally 
stronger  than  the  instinct  of  self-preservation. 

And  this  is  primordial  altruism,  into  which  the 
element  of  selfishness  as  such  does  not  enter. 

Thirdly,  it  must  be  here  remarked  that  the  inhe- 
rent power  which  developed  and  improved  the 
physical  structures  of  all  sentient  creatures  was  the 
creative  energy  of  organic  evolution,  -without  which 
"there  was  not  anything  made  that  was  made." 

The  reader  will  now  perceive  the  adumbration  of 
a  great  truth,  which,  as  thus  far  developed,  may  be 
i    formulated  as  follows:  — 

If      The  primordial  cell  was  endowed,  ab  initio^  with 
(   instincts  which,  in  their  normal  interrelated  activi- 
i  ties,  constitute  a  constant  energy  that  is  both  pro- 
gressive and  conservative,  creative  and  preservative^ 
self -regard  ing  and  altruistic.     Being  primordial  in' 
,  stincts,  they  are  the  heritage  of  all  sentient  creatures, 
!  and  hence  we  may  expect  to  witness  their  ultimate 
,  development  in  man. 

And  this  is  precisely  what  we  do   find  in   man, 
i     individually  and  collectively.     We  find  that  he  still 
retains  the  instinct  of  self-preservation,  with  all  the 
selfishness  that  its  abnormal  development  implies, 
I    all  too  frequently  manifested  in  his  character,  indi- 
vidual  and   national.     We   also   find  the  altruistic 
instinct    retained    and    developed,    broadened    and 
\  ever  broadening,  elevated  and   ever  reaching    into 
higher  realms.     And  we  also  find,  by  an  analysis 
that  any  one  can  make  for  himself,  that  man's  whole 
character,  in  all  the  relations  of  his  life,  whether  he 
is  considered  as  an  individual,  a  husband  or  a  father, 


THE  TWO   GREAT  GENERIC  INSTINCTS.     I /I 

a  neighbor  or  a  citizen,  a  moral  or  a  religious  being, 
is  determined  by  the  relative  development  and 
dominance  of  the  two  instincts. 

It  might  be  inferred  from  these  remarks  that  the 
two  are  incompatible,  since  they  are  so  often  in 
antagonism.  But,  as  in  natural  selection,  this  is  an 
incident  and  not  a  law.  They  are  both  necessary, 
and  when  harmoniously  developed  and  balanced,  they 
are  never  in  antagonism.  The  latter  is  incidental 
to  the  state  of  transition  from  the  animal  to  man, 
from  primitive  savagery  to  civilization. 

It  is  the  mental  phenomena  incident  to  this 
transitory  state  that  give  rise  to  so  much  subtle 
analysis  and  sophistication  on  the  part  of  those 
philosophers  and  scientists  who  examine  monads 
and  morals  with  the  same  microscope.  These  are 
the  philosophers  who  find  in  the  soul  of  man  noth- 
ing but  selfishness,  no  basis  of  human  integrity  but 
in  the  instinct  of  self-preservation,  no  virtue  but  in 
lack  of  opportunity,  no  altruism  but  in  some  form 
of  self-indulgence,  no  religion  but  in  fear  of  future 
punishment. 

Nevertheless,  the  altruistic  acts  of  civilized  beings 
predominate.     Every  family  of  children  is  a  living    | 
attestation  of  this  truth.     Every  schoolhouse,  church, 
and  eleemosynary  institution  is  a  monumental  evi- 
dence of   it.     Every  mission,  foreign  or  domestic,   f 
proclaims  it.     Every  legislative  act  for  the  benefit 
of  future   generations    is  an  expression  of  national 
altruism.     This  list  might  be  indefinitely  extended 
without  including  a  tithe  of  the  acts  that  are  daily 
and    hourly  being   performed   by   millions   of   self-^ 
sacrificing  men  and  women  whose  only  reward   or 


\T  2         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

hope  of  reward  is  the  consciousness  that  their  toil 
will  benefit  others. 

I  do  not  underestimate  the  element  of  self-regard 
that  may  enter  into  many  of  the  acts  which  inure  to 
the  benefit  of  future  generations.  The  two  impulses, 
when  harmoniously  developed,  as  they  are  in  every 
normal  man  and  woman,  are  concomitants;  for, 
obviously,  every  one  must  preserve  his  own  life  if 
he  would  benefit  others.  But  what  I  do  say  is  that 
when  the  balance  is  struck  between  those  acts  which 
are  performed  under  the  impulses  derived  from  the 
instinct  of  self-preservation  and  those  which  are 
prompted  by  the  altruistic  instinct,  an  overwhelm- 
ing preponderance  will  be  found  on  the  side  of 
altruism. 

The  myriad  little  acts,  for  the  benefit  of  others, 
which  constitute  the  daily  life  of  all  mothers  and 
fathers,  neighbors  and  friends,  largely  swell  the 
balance  which  must  be  credited  on  the  side  of  in- 
stinctive altruism.  They  are  unheralded,  unnoted, 
and  unrecorded,  save  in  the  book  of  the  "  Recording 
Angel ; "  but  they  are  often  the  deeds  of  heroes  and 
of  martyrs.  The  unobservant  world  takes  no  note 
of  them ;  for  its  attention  is  constantly  solicited  to 
the  daily  record  of  crimes.  Besides,  "the  evil  that 
men  do  lives  after  them ;  the  good  is  oft  interred 
with  their  bones."  It  is  not  strange,  therefore,  that 
the  superficial  observer  is  unconsciously  led  to  the 
belief  that  selfishness,  with  its  train  of  manifold 
evils,  is  the  rule  and  not  the  exception;  or  that  even 
great  philosophers  should  come  to  regard  all  altruistic 
feeling  as  but  a  sublimated  form  of  selfishness.  We 
should  not,  therefore,  judge  the  busy  world  too 

P  <Tt-«_y-|xUJv3 


THE   TWO   GREAT  GENERIC  INSTINCTS.     1/3 

harshly  for  its  lack  of  close  observation,  or  its  want 
of  analytical  power.  Nor  should  we  condemn  the 
philosopher  for  the  conclusions  which  he  derives 
from  a  close  analysis  of  psychological  phenomena; 
for  it  is  axiomatic  with  the  old  psychologists,  that 
each  student  of  the  science  must  be  guided,  in  the 
solution  of  problems,  largely  by  the  recognized  states 
of  his  own  inner  consciousness.1 

I  think  that  it  can  safely  be  said  that  the  fore- 
going facts  constitute  presumptive  evidence  that 
there  exists  in  all  sentient  creatures,  from  the 
moneron  to  man,  an  instinct  that  can  be  appro- 
priately designated  by  no  name  less  comprehensive 
than  that  of  the  "evolutionary  instinct;"  that  in  its 
moral  aspects  it  must  be  called  the  "altruistic  in- 
stinct;" and  that  it  is  distinct  and  separable  from 
the  instinct  of  self-preservation.  If  conclusive 
evidence  is  wanting,  it  is  found  in  the  fact  that, 
when  the  two  instincts  are  in  the  balance,  the  altru- 
istic instinct  normally  prevails.  This  is  evidenced 
in  a  thousand  ways,  some  of  which  I  have  already 
mentioned.  It  is  demonstrably  proven  by  the  broad 
fact  that  progress  is  being  made  in  civilization,  and 
that  the  greatest  progress  is  made  among  those 
nations  whose  form  of  government  is  the  most 

1  That  "  inner  consciousness  "  is  an  unsafe  guide,  is  evidenced  by 
the  fact  that  under  the  old  system  (or  want  of  system)  there  were  as 
many  psychologies,  each  contradictory  of  the  others,  as  there  were 
psychologists  of  variant  idiosyncrasies.  The  fact  that  the  latter  were 
responsible  for  each  one's  "  recognized  states  of  his  own  inner  con- 
sciousness  "  accounts  for  the  chaotic  condition  of  the  old  psychology. 
Obviously  this  arose  from  the  lack  of  a  valid  working  hypothesis, 
applicable  alike  to  all  states  of  consciousness,  and  adequate  to  the 
explication  of  all  psychological  phenomena. 


THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE  OF  MAN. 

altruistic,  whose  laws  accord  the  fullest  recognition 
of  the  rights  of  the  people.  It  is  among  the  people 
of  such  nations  that  the  dominance  of  the  altruistic 
instinct  over  that  of  self-preservation  is  most  fre- 
quently made  manifest.  In  them  it  is  manifested  in 
the  habitual  disregard  of  danger  to  self  when  the 
lives  of  others  are  at  stake,  —  in  the  firemen  who  risk 
and  often  sacrifice  their  lives  in  rescuing  women 
and  children  from  the  flames,  in  the  pilot  who 
perishes  at  the  wheel  while  steering  a  burning  pas- 
senger-laden boat  to  the  shore,  in  the  soldier  who 
without  conscription  offers  his  life  to  his  country 
and  humanity,  in  the  sailors  who  instinctively  ^seat 
all  the  passengers  of  a  sinking  ship  in  the  lifeboats 
before  taking  thought  for  their  own  safety. 

It  is  true  that  a  high  degree  of  national  altruism 
must  be  attained  before  such  deeds  become  habitual, 
instinctive,  and  characteristic  of  a  people.  But  that 
such  nations  exist  is  current  history.  It  is  also  true 
that  there  are  nations,  calling  themselves  civilized, 
that  have  not  yet  risen  to  that  moral  altitude,  or 
have  fallen  below  it,  whose  sailors  instinctively 
seize  the  lifeboats  of  a  sinking  ship  and  brain  the 
women  and  children  who  seek  to  share  their  safety. 

Nevertheless,  the  world  is  tending  toward  the 
higher  altruism,  national  and  individual.  There 
may  be  cases  of  arrested  development,  atavism, 
degeneracy,  and  national  decadence ;  and  one  of  the 
surest  evidences  of  it  is  the  habitual  disregard  of  the 
rights  of  women  and  children,  of  which  the  savage 
brutality  above  mentioned  is  merely  the  efflorescence. 
Fortunately,  however,  sterility  and  degeneration  are 
concomitants  with  a  causal  connection;  and  racial 


THE   TWO  GREAT  GENERIC  INSTINCTS.     1 75 

extinction,  therefore,  is  but  a  question  of  time.  \ 
Atavism,  with  all  that  the  name  implies,  antecedent 
and  consequent,  is  an  incident  of  evolutionary  de- 
velopment, as  well  of  civilization  as  of  organic  life; 
but  natural  selection,  or  survival  of  the  fittest, 
gradually  eliminates  all  elements  of  antagonism 
to  that  primordial  energy  which  is  the  cause  of  all 
evolution.  And  as  that  energy  is  as  constant  and 
as  potent  in  the  evolution  of  civilization  as  it  was 
in  the  primordial  cell,  we  may  rest  assured  that 
neither  the  atavism  of  one  race  nor  the  primitive 
savagery  of  another  can  arrest  the  onward  and 
upward  progress  of  humanity  toward  universal 
altruism. 

It  will  now  be  seen  that  in  making  the  foregoing 
remarks  I  have  not  antagonized  the  central  idea  of 
the  most  rigidly  scientific  evolutionist;  for  if  there 
is  any  one  thing  that  he  labors  to  establish  that  is 
more  vital  to  his  hypothesis  than  any  other,  it  is 
that  the  potentialities  of  manhood  reside  in  the  primor- 
dial cell.  And  this  is  just  what  I  have  been  labor- 
ing to  prove,  and  I  submit  that  I  have  given  better 
reasons  for  that  belief  than  he  has;  for  by  showing 
that  altruism  is  the  dominant  characteristic  of  all 
normal  sentient  beings,  I  have  correlated  the  regnant 
instinct  of  the  lowest  unicellular  organism  with  the 
highest  attributes  of  an  ideally  perfect  manhood. 

Nor  have  I  antagonized  the  central  idea  of  Chris- 
tian theism  as  it  was  voiced  by  the  oldest  prophets; 
for  if  there  is  any  one  doctrine  that  is  more  vital  to 
Christianity  than  another,  it  is  that  man  was  made 
in  the  image  of  God.  And  this,  I  submit,  could  not 
be  true  if  altruism  were  not  the  regnant  instinct  of 


176        THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

the  human  soul,  or  if  its  universality  were  not  the 
ultimate  goal  of  human  progress. 

And  thus  it  happens  that  the  central  tenet  of  each 
of  two  supposedly  antagonistic  philosophies  is  con- 
firmed and  illustrated  by  one  fundamental  truth. 

This  of  itself  is  profoundly  significant;  for  the 
fact  that  a  hypothesis  is  capable  of  harmonizing 
two  supposedly  antagonistic  philosophies  is  a  strong 
argument  for  its  truth.  Nor  is  this  all.  The  most 
significant  part  of  it  is  that  this  one  instinct  not 
only  constitutes  the  potential  energy  which  lies  at 
the  bottom  of  all  physical  development  from  the 
moneron  to  man;  but  it  is  the  agency  of  man's 
mental,  moral,  and  spiritual  development  from  sav- 
agery to  civilization,  and  constitutes  the  promise 
and  potency  of  universal  altruism. 


CHAPTER   IX. 

EVOLUTION  OF  THE   TWO  INSTINCTS   IN  THE 
INDIVIDUAL. 

Recapitulation.  —  Man's  Environment  of  a  Moral,  Social,  and  Spirit- 
ual Nature.  —  Same  Process  of  Development  with  Men  as  with 
Animals.  —  Brain  Mind  reasons  out  a  Line  of  Conduct.  —  Habit 
converts  it  into  a  Permanent  Characteristic.  —  It  is  then  an 
Attribute  of  the  Subjective  Mind,  i.e.  Instinctive.  —  It  is  then 
Inheritable.  —  The  Warfare  between  Reason  and  Passion.  — Not 
for  the  Suppression  of  Passional  Emotions,  but  for  their  Regula- 
tion. —  Reason  the  Judicial  Tribunal.  —  The  Sum  of  its  Decisions 
constitutes  the  Character  of  the  Individual.  —  As  befits  its  Judi- 
cial Character,  the  Reasoning  Mind  is  Emotionless.  —  Neverthe- 
less it  ministers  to  Self-interest.  —  It  decides  upon  what  is  Best 
for  the  Individual. — The  Brain  the  Novum  Organum  of  Animal 
Intelligence.  —  Suggestion  the  Executive  Agency  of  the  Judicial 
Tribunal.  —  It  is  the  Power  which  invests  Man  with  Dominion 
over  all  Animate  Nature,  including  Himself.  —  Intellectual  Facul- 
ties of  Subjective  Mind  rarely  appear  above  the  Surface.  —  Ex- 
ceptions in  Genius.  —  Emotions,  however,  constantly  in  Evidence. 
—  Synchronism  of  the  Two  Minds.  —  Facts  demonstrating  Duality 
of  Mind.  —  Hypnotism,  Somnambulism,  etc.  —  Objective  Mind 
not  controlled  by  Suggestion.  —  Subjective  Mind  is  so  controlled 
except  in  Matters  of  Conscience.  —  Man  not  handicapped  by  a 
Preponderance  of  Evil  in  his  Nature.  —  The  Strongest  Instinct 
impels  to  Progress.  —  Reason  is  on  the  Side  of  Right.  —  A  Cru- 
cial Question.  —  Why  does  the  Mortal  Mind  dominate  the  Im- 
mortal Mind  in  this  Life?  —  The  Question  answered.  —  The 
Immortal,  or  Subjective,  Mind  was  destined  for  a  Higher  Plane 
of  Ultimate  Existence.  —  Meantime  Subjective  Faculties  must 
develop  on  this  Plane.  —  Reason  the  Agency. — Thus  Man  was 
made  a  Free  Moral  Agent 

I  HAVE  now  shown  that  all  the  emotions  of  the 
soul  of  man  have  their  origin  in  two  correlative 
instincts,    namely;  the   instinct   of  self-preservation, 
and  the  evolutionary,  or  altruistic,  instinct.     I  have 

12 


1/8         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE  OF  MAN. 

pointed  out  the  fact  that  under  normal  conditions 
the  two  are  harmoniously  interrelated,  but  that 
under  abnormal  conditions  either  faculty  may  obtain 
undue  ascendancy,  even  to  the  total  submergence  of 
the  other. 

I  have  shown  that,  normally,  the  instinct  of  self- 
preservation  is  conservative  and  preservative ;  that  it 
is  promotive  of  a  due  regard  for  existing  conditions, 
personal  safety,  and  private  rights ;  but  that,  abnor- 
mally developed,  it  leads  to  pure  selfishness  and  a 
total  disregard  of  the  rights  of  others. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  evolutionary  instinct, 
normally  developed,  is  creative,  progressive,  and 
altruistic,  altruism  predominating.  Abnormal  de- 
velopment leads  to  a  chronic  dissatisfaction  with 
existing  institutions  and  to  imbecile  schemes  for 
"reforming  them;  to  hysterical  sympathy  for  crimi- 
nals whose  crimes  are  of  exceptional  atrocity;  to 
suicide  for  the  purpose  of  enabling  one's  family  to 
realize  on  his  life  insurance;  in  short,  to  unreason- 
ing and  unrestrained  excitation  of  the  sympathetic 
emotions. 

I  have  shown  that  between  the  extremes  of  self- 
isjiness  and  jiltruism  there  exists  a  wide  battlefield 
for  the  contending  emotions ;  that  the  conflict  be- 
tween them  is  incident  to  the  transitional  stage  of 
development  from  primitive  savagery  to  an  ideal 
civilization.  It  is  the  great  body  of  mental  phe- 
nomena incident  to  this  transitional  stage  that  fur- 
nishes forth  the  pttce  de  resistance  for  all  the  feasts 
of  reason  with  which  philosophers  and  metaphysi- 
cians have  been  wont  to  regale  mankind.  I  shall 
not  enter  that  field  at  present  except  for  the  purpose 


TWO   INSTINCTS  IN   THE  INDIVIDUAL.     179 

of  a  brief  inquiry  with  especial  reference  to  the  in- 
fluence of  the  brain  mind,  or  objective  mind,  upon 
the  development  and  regulation  of  the  two  instincts 
which  we  have  been  considering. 

I  have  already  endeavored  to  show  that  the  brain  is 
sidpJy-_a  highly  specialized  physicaLorgan,  especially 
adapted  jx^the  exigencies  of  a  physical  environment, 
and  that  it  was  developed  in  response  to  the  growing 
necessities  of  animal  life,  just  as,  under  other  condi- 
tions, weapons  of  offensive  and  defensive  warfare  were 
developed.  I  have  shown  that  the  brain  performed 
its  functions^  largely  by  the  process  of  developing 
secondary  instincts ;  that  it  was  constantly  stimulated 
to  increased  efficiency  by  contact  with  ever-increas- 
ing complexities  of  constantly  changing  environ- 
mental conditions ;  and  that  it  thus  became  in  man 
the^dominating  factor  in  the  dual  mental  organism. 
I  shall  now  attempt  to  show  that  man's  mental, 
moral,  spiritual,  and  social  development  is  brought 
about  by  precisely  the  same  agencies,  operating  by 
the  same  processes  that  developed  animal  intelligence 
after  the  brain  became  a  factor  in  mental  evolution. 
There  are  differences,  of  course ;  but  they  are  of 
degree,  proportion,  and  subject-matter.  That  is  to 
say,  there  is  a  difference  of  degree  in  the  development 
of  the  objective  mind,  there  is  a  difference  in  the 
proportional  development  of  the  two  minds,  and 
there  is  a  difference  in  subject-matter  in  that  the 
environmental  conditions,  which  stimulate  the  growth 
and  progressive  development  of  man,  are  largely  of 
a  moral,  intellectual,  and  spiritual  nature.  But  the 
processes  are  fundamentally  identical. 

Thus,  when  an  animal  is  confronted  by  a  new  en- 


180        THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE  OF  MAN. 

vironment,  involving  new  problems  of  subsistence 
and  new  dangers  to  be  encountered,  its  inherited 
instincts  are  at  fault  ;  and  hence  it  "  acts  intelligently," 
as  the  naturalists  say.  That  is,  it  reasons  out  the 
problems  presented  and  acts  accordingly.  In  other 
words,  the  objective,  or  brain,  intelligence  performs  its 
functions  and  directs  aline  of  conduct  adapted  to  the 
exigencies  of  the  case.  Then,  if  the  conditions  are 
permanent,  the  intelligent  act  becomes  habitual,  and 
finally,  "after  being  performed  for  several  genera- 
tions it  is  converted  into  a  permanent  instinct,  and  is 
thereafter  inherited." 

When  new  problems  are  presented  to  man,  the 
process  and  the  result  are  the  same.  For  instance, 
a  question  involving  the  principles  of  right  and 
wrong  presents  itself  to  the  objective,  or  reasoning, 
mind.  It  may  be  a  question  involving  the  personal 
welfare  of  the  individual,  or  it  may  involve  his  emo- 
tional nature.  It  may  be  a  question  of  religious  duty, 
or  it  may  involve  his  obligations  to  his  family,  the 
community  in  which  he  resides,  or  the  state  which 
claims  his  allegiance.  In  either  case  there  may  be 
conflicting  interests,  emotions,  or  passions  to  recon- 
cile, regulate,  or  restrain.  The  untrained  passions  of 
the  animal  or  the  primitive  man,  with  correspondingly 
feeble  reasoning  powers,  would  quickly  decide  in  favor 
of  sensual  gratification,  unless  restrained  by  an  obvi- 
ously imminent  danger.  But  the  man  whose  reason  is 
trained  and  developed  may  yet  be  beset  by  strong 
emotions,  passions,  interests,  or  desires  that  conflict 
with  what  reason  prescribes  as  a  duty  to  himself,  to 
humanity,  or  to  God.  Then  ensues  the  great  conflict 
of  which  Paul  complains,  —  "  the  law  in  his  members 


TWO  INSTINCTS  IN  THE  INDIVIDUAL.     l8l 

warring  against  the  law  of  his  mind."  Every  normal 
man  is  called  upon  to  experience  this  warfare  be- 
tween duty  and  desire,  between  right  and  wrong. 
Normally  conducted,  it  is  a  conflict,  not  for  the 
destruction  of  the  emotional  nature  of  man,  not  for 
the  elimination  of  the  passional  element  from  his 
soul,  but  for  the  regulation,  elevation,  and  purifica- 
tion of  that  element  and  directing  it  into  legitimate 
channels  of  normal  activity. 

It  is  the  office  of  reason,  the  function  of  the  objec- 
tive mind,  to  decide  the  contest,  and  just  in  propor- 
tion to  the  relative  strength  of  the  reasoning  powers 
as  compared  with  that  of  man's  selfish  emotions,  will 
the  decision  be  on  the  side  of  right  as  against  wrong. 

Reason,  therefore,  is  the  judicial  tribunal  of  the 
soul ;  and  when  its  decision  is  made  in  any  case  of 
conflict,  a  course  of  conduct  is  entered  upon  in  ac- 
cordance with  that  decision.  And  it  is^  the  aggregate 
ol  these  decisions  that  constitutes  the  character  of  the 
individual.  Whatever  the  course  may  be,  when  it 
becomes  habitual,  and  when  it  is  persisted  in  for  a 
few  generations,  it  is  converted  into  an  instinct  and 
is  then  inherited.  In  other  words,  another  second- 
ary instinct  is  thus  created,  which  adds  its  quota  to 
the  sum  of  the  faculties  of  the  subjective  mind. 

It  must  not  be  forgotten,  in  this  connection,  that 
while  the  objective  mind  is  cold  and  emotionless,  as 
becomes  its  judicial  function,  it  is,  and  has  been  from 
the  beginning,  identified  in  its  judicial  capacity  with 
the  instincts  of  self-preservation  and  appetency,  or  the 
evolutionary  instinct.  As  we  have  already  seen,  it  is 
the  source  of  secondary  instincts  alike  in  animals 
and  in  man.  That  it  is  the  source  of  all  progress  in 


1 82        THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

the  sciences  and  the  appliances  of  civilization,  is  a 
matter  of  common  observation.  It  follows  that  its 
constant  aim  is  to  do  the  very  best  it  can  for  the 
preservation  and  progress  of  humanity.  Its  judgment 
may  sometimes  be  wrong,  but  that  it  is  generally 
right  is  evidenced  by  the  giant  strides  which  civiliza- 
tion has  made  since  Bacon  formulated  the  function 
of  the  brain  and  reduced  its  process  of  reasoning  to  a 
system.-  **-  L~*~*^~  *T^-  fr^-r^ 

Nor  must  it  be  forgotten  that  this  judicial  tribunal 
of  the  dual  mental  organism  is  not  destitute  of  an 
executive  agency  to  enforce  its  decrees.  That  agency 
is  what  is  known  to  science  as  the  law  of  suggestion. 
The  power^LLaiiggestion  is  the  most  potent  mental 
energy  with  which  man  is  endowed.  Its  influence  is 
felt  in  every  department  of  human  activity.  It  is  the 
instrumentality  of  universal  education.  It  is  the 
power  that  invests  man  with  dominion  over  all  sen- 
tient creatures.  It  is.  in  short,  the,  instrumentality 
through  which  the  mind  of  reason  is  enabled  to  edu- 
cate and  discipline  the  soul  for  weal  or  woe  in  this 
world  and  the  world  to  come. 

I  repeat,  therefore,  that  the  objective  mind,  the 
mind  of  which  the  sole  function  is  that  of  inductive 
reasoning,  is  the  judicial  tribunal — the  court  of 
Oyer  and  Terminer  —  which  hears  and  determines 
all  questions  pertaining  to  the  welfare  of  man  in  this 
life.  When  properly  cultivated,  it  sits  in  judgment 
upon  every  act  of  our  lives,  regulates  every  emotion, 
restrains  every  passion,  and  directs  it  into  legitimate 
channels.  In  short,  it  is  at  once  the  tenure  by  which 
man  holds  his  free  moral  agency  and  the  power  that 
enables  him  to  fit  his  soul  for  eternity. 


TWO  INSTINCTS  IN  THE  INDIVIDUAL.     183 

But,  as  before  remarked,  an  agency  was  necessary 
to  enforce  the  decrees  of  the  tribunal  of  reason  upon 
the  mind  of  the  soul.  This  was  rendered  possible  by 
the  limitations  of  the  subjective  faculties.  This  limi- 
tation, as  I  have  before  pointed  out,  consists  of  the 
absence  of  inductive  power  in  the  subjective  mind. 
It  was,  indeed,  this  limitation  that  rendered  a  brain 
necessary  as  a  part  of  tEe  physical  organism,  and 
under  the  law  of  appetency  it  wasjthis.  necessity  that 
impelled  its  development.  When  the  brain  was  de- 
veloped, it  swayed  the  dominant  mental  energy  by 
virtue  of  its  power  to  reason,  and  its  consequent 
ability  to  take  the  initiative  in  those  intelligent  actions 
that  were  rendered  necessary  from  time  to  time  in 
consequence  of  constantly  increasing  complexities  of 
environment.  The  subjective  minds  of  the  lower 
animals  were  therefore  dominated  by  the  sugges- 
tions of  their  objective  minds,  precisely  as  the  sub- 
jective mind  of  man  is  now  controlled.  In  fact,  the 
supremacy  of  suggestion  was  even  more  perfect, 
theoretically  at  least,  with  animals  than  with  men,  for 
the  reason  that  all  intelligence  in  animals  pertains  to 
self-preservation  and  evolution.  The  objective  intel- 
ligence therefore  ministered  to  the  wants  and  neces- 
sities and  propensities  of  animal  nature  just  the  same 
as  it  contributed  to  its  safety. 

But  with  man  it  is  different.  Questions  of  moral- 
ity, ethics,  and  religion  occupy  man's  attention,  and 
require  the  restraint  or  regulation  of  the  animal  pro- 
pensities. Hence  it  is  that  the  control  by  the  power 
of  suggestion  is  not  so  easy  and  certain  in  man  as  it 
is  in  animals.  Nevertheless,  the  subjective  mind  of 
man  is  limited  by  the  same  absence  of  inductive 


1 84        THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

powers,  and  the  law  of  suggestion  prevails.  Hence 
the  frequent  contests  for  supremacy  between  the 
two  minds,  —  the  mind  of  reason  and  the  mind  of 
emotion,  the  mind  of  judgment  and  the  mind  of 
passjon. 

It  may  be  here  remarked  that  this  contest  has  been 

experienced  by  every  normal  man  and  every  normal 

woman  of  mature  years.     It  is  the  one  phenomenal 

manifestation  of  duality  of  mind  that  is  experienced, 

under  normal  conditions,  by  everybody.     The  other 

faculties  of  the  subjective  mind  are  less  in  evidence. 

The  purely  intellectual  faculties,  for  instance,  rarely 

appear  above  the  threshold  of  normal  consciousness. 

•'They  sometimes  appear  in  cases  of  genius;  but  as 

1  Lombroso,1   more    clearly   than   any   one   else,   has 

pointed  out,  genius  itself  is  intensely  abnormal.    The 

'  same  may  be  said  of  the  faculties  of  telepathy  and 

j  telekinesis,  modified   only  by  the  character   of  the 

manifestations  and  the  nature  of  the  abnormality. 

But  the  emotions  are  constantly  near  the  surface, 
so  much  so,  indeed,  that  some  of  those  who  adhere 
to  the  dual  hypothesis  are  inclined  to  the  opinion 
that  the  objective  mind  itself  is  endowed  with  emo- 
tional faculties.  This,  however,  is  an  error  that  will 
be  made  obvious  by  a  moment's  consideration  of  the 
salient  facts. 

Thus,  to  locate  the  emotions  in  the  reasoning  mind 
would  be  to  handicap  it  with  that  which  would  limit 
if  it  did  not  destroy  its  "  judicial  independence." 
This,  on  the  principle_oJL-adaptation  of  function  to 
.purpose,  which  prevails  in  all  nature,  would  be  a 
sufficient  reason  for  keeping  the  judicial  mind  free 

1  See  "  The  Man  of  Genius." 


TWO  INSTINCTS  IN  THE  INDIVIDUAL.     185 

from  the  influence  of  selfish  emotions.  This,  how- 
ever, is  merely  a  reason  why  the  emotions  should  not 
be  located  in  the  reasoning  mind.  But  it  should 
not  be  forgotten  that,  jn  all  of  nature's  laws,  that 
.which  should  not  be  is  not,  and  that  which  should 
be  is.  We  may  rest  assured,  therefore,  on  a  priori 
grounds,  that  nature's  mental  tribunal,  which  was 
so  obviously  instituted  for  the  purpose  of  providing 
a  guide  and  a  mentor  for  the  body  and  the  soul  in 
their  journey  through  the  dangers  and  temptations 
of  earthly  existence,  is  not  handicapped  by  faculties 
that  would  preclude  the  possibility  of  a  dispassionate 
performance  of  its  functions. 

The  facts  bearing  upon  the  question  are  many, 
prominent  among  which  are  these :  The  crucial  fact 
is  that  the  emotional  faculties  antedated  the  brain 
by  many  millions  of  years ;  and  since  no  member  of 
the  old  school  of  psychology  has  been  able  to  tell  us 
when  or  by  what  process  they  were  transferred  to 
the  new  organ,  we  are  justified  in  assuming,  on  a 
priori  grounds,  that  the  transfer  has  never  been 
made.  Logically,  therefore,  we  have  a  right  to  hold 
that  position  until  the  contrary  has  been  demon- 
strated; or  at  least  until  such  a  posteriori  reasons 
are  advanced  as  will  show  the  position  to  be  unten- 
able. But  it  happens  that  the  latter  all  conspire  to 
sustain  the  position.  For  instance,  the  warring  of 
the  parts,  from  the  agonies  of  which  St.  Paul  prayed 
to  be  delivered,  or  the  conflict  between  reason 
and  passion  of  which  we  have  already  spoken,  pre- 
sents indubitable  evidence  that  two  distinct  mental 
organisms,  actuated  by  antagonistic  motives,  are  con-, 
testing  for  supremacy. 


1 86        THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

Again,  the  facts  of  suggestion  demonstrate  the 
principle  of  duality.  Thus,  normally  the  brain  mind, 
or  objective  mind,  controls  the  subjective  mind,  in- 

f  eluding  the  emotions,  just  in  proportion  to  the  com- 
parative development  of  the  two.  But  when  the 

1  action  of  the  brain  is  inhibited,  as  in  hypnotism,  the 
emotions  can  be  controlled  by  the  suggestions  of 
^another.  And  this  may  be  done  even  against  reason, 
experience,  or  the  evidences  of  the  senses.  The 
only  exception  to  this  rule  is  when  the  suggestions 
conflict  with  conscience.  Of  this  more  will  be  said 
hereinafter.  Now,  the  fact  that  the  emotions  can  be 
controlled  by  suggestion  under  any  circumstances 
so  far  as  to  nullify  the  facts  of  experience,  is  indu- 
bitable evidence  that  they  belong  to  the  subjective 
mind.  And  when  to  this  is  added  the  correlative 
fact  that  the  reasoning,  or  objective,  mind  is  not  and 
cannot  be  so  controlled ;  but  that,  on  the  contrary, 
it  normally  has  the  power  to  control  the  subjective 
mind  by  suggestion,  we  have  an  overwhelming  array 
of  evidence  that  the  two  minds  are  distinct  organisms, 
rjpssessing  independent  powers,  operating^by  _di_ verse 
methods  and  differentiated  by  distinctive  limitations. 

i'r     It  will  now  be  seen  that  in  the  great  conflict  be- 

.  tween  evil  and  good,  in  the  great  struggle  between 
right  and  wrong,  man  is  not  handicapped  by  a 
preponderance  of  evil  in  his  nature.  On  the  con- 

1  trary,  the  strongest  instinct  of  his  soul  impels  him 

!  forward  in  the  path  of  progress  toward  a  realization 
of  the  highest  ideals  of  the  Master,  and  reason  is  on 

vthe  side  of  right. 

In  this  connection  it  has  often  been  asked  why 
it  is  that  the  subjective  mind  —  the  mind  of  the 


TWO  INSTINCTS  IN  THE  INDIVIDUAL.     l8/ 

immortal  soul — is  subordinated  to  the  mind  that 
perishes ;  why  it  is  that  it  is  limited  in  its  reasoning 
powers,  —  why  it  is  dominated  and  constantly  con- 
trolled by  the  power  of  suggestion.  These  are  perti- 
nent and  far-reaching  questions;  and  if  they  could 
not  be  answered  clearly  and  definitely,  and  the 
methods  of  control  and  the  processes  of  training  and 
development  clearly  pointed  out,  the  hypothesis  would 
be  unworthy  of  a  moment's  serious  consideration. 

In  attempting  a  reply  to  these  questions  we  must 
premise  that,  the  foundation  having  been  laid  by 
the  facts  and  arguments  in  the  foregoing  chapters, 
what  follows  will  be  largely  in  the  nature  of  a  state- 
ment of  conclusions. 

In  the  first  place,  it  must  be  remarked  that,  since 
God's  method  of  creation  is  by  a  process  of  progres- 
sive development  in  accordance  with  an  immutable 
law,  and  since  it  is  evident  that  man  is  the  final 
goal  of  organic  evolution,  it  follows  that  the  poten- 
tialities of  manhood  were  necessarily  inherent  in  his 
primordial  ancestry.  That  is  to  say,  every  essential 
faculty  of  the  subjective  mind  of  man  existed,  incho- 
ate and  potential,  in  the  mind  of  the  lowest  unicellu- 
lar organism  ;  and  after  the  brain  was  evolved,  every 
faculty,  objective  and  subjective,  that  man  possesses 
thus  existed  in  all  his  ancestry  that  were  endowed 
with  brain  faculties.  No  evolutionist  will  gainsay 
this  proposition  ;  for  it  is  the  essential  implication 
of  the  evolutionary  hypothesis. 

It  follows  that  all  the  animal  passions  and  pro- 
pensities  are  the  inalienable  hereditaments  of  man. 
After  what  has  been  said  in  preceding  chapters,  how- 
ever, the  statement  will  not  seem  so  shocking  as  the 


1 88        THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

words  might  seem  to  indicate ;  for  it  is  now  evident 
that  what  we  have  been  in  the  habit  of  stigmatizing 
as  the  "lowest  instincts"  of  animals  is  primordial 
altruism  ;  and  that  these  same  instincts,  when  normally 
developed,  refined,  purified,  elevated,  and  directed  by 
an  enlightened  conscience  into  legitimate  channels  in 
man,  are  converted  into  the  noblest  impulses,  and 
are  promotive  of  the  highest  and  purest  altruistic 
devotion  of  which  the  souls  of  men  are  capable. 
Man  need  not,  therefore,  be  ashamed  of  the  mental 
attributes  of  his  humble  ancestors,  since  his  noblest 
faculties  were  inherited  from  them,  and  the  quality, 
character,  and  value  of  the  heritage  depend  upon 
his  own  volition,  —  depend  upon  the  use  he  makes 
of  it.  The  parable  of  the  talents  is  directly  in  point; 
and  it  is  one  of  the  finest  illustrations  of  the  wisdom 
of  the  Master  that  have  been  handed  down  to  us. 

Here,  then,  we  have  two  facts  to  correlate.  The 
first  is  the  fact  that  the  faculties  possessed  by 
man  existed,  inchoate,  in  the  lower  animals.  The 
second  is  that  the  subjective  mind  of  each  is  limited 
.by  the  law  of  suggestion;  or,  what  is  an  equivalent 
statement,  it  is  incapable  of  inductive  reasonin g. 

K      Now,  the  first  explanation  that  the  inquirer  will 

i  demand  is,  Why  is  the  subjective  mind  thus  limited 
in  its  powers?  To  that  question  only  a  provisional 

1  answer  can  be  made  in  this  immediate  connection ; 
namely,  that  it  appears  to  be  because  the  subjective 

I  mind  or  entity  was  designed  for  a  higher  ultimate 
destiny;  and  hence  only  such  faculties  were  given  to 
it  as  would  be  useful  in  that  higher  plane  of  exist- 
ence. Hence  inductive  powers  were  not  given  to  it, 

[/  for  the  reason  that  such  a  faculty  would  be  useless 


TWO  INSTINCTS  IN  THE  INDIVIDUAL.     189 

to  a  being  who  is  endowed  with  the  power  of  intuitive   ^ 
perception  of  the  laws  of  its  being,  or,  in  other  words, 
of  all  essential  truth  pertaining  to  its  state  of  exist-   . 
ence.     I  have,  however,  touched  upon  this  topic  in   ' 
earlier  chapters  of  this  book,  and  have  treated  it  more 
fully  elsewhere.1      It  is  reiterated  here  only  for  the 
purpose  of  making  the  present  statement  complete. 

Be  the  reasons  what  they  may,  the  facts  remain  as 
stated,  namely,  (i)  that  man  inherited  all  his  facul- 
jies,  passions,  and  propensities  from  the  lower  animals ;  - 
and  (2)  that  the  subjective  mind  is,  and  always  has 
been,  controlled  by  the  suggestions  of  the  objective 
mind. 

Now,  this  control  was  easy  and  without  friction  so 
long  as  the  whole  energies  of  the  dual  mind  were 
absorbed  in  providing  for  the  necessities  and  avoiding 
the  dangers  incident  to  a  purely  animal  existence. 
But  when  man  appeared,  and  when,  in  the  process 
of  development,  he  emerged  from  a  state  of  primitive 
savagery,  he  gradually  became  conscious  of  the  fact 
that  his  environment  was  no  longer  purely  physical. 
In  other  words,  he  gradually  became  conscious  of 
his  status  as  a  moral  being,  having  duties  to  perform 
toward  his  fellow-men.  With  that  came  a  sense  of 
dependence  upon  some  higher  power,  together  with 
a  sense  of  duty  or  obligation  to  that  higher  power. 

In  short,  the  time  came  when  it  was  necessary  to 
restrain  and  control  the  animal  passions  and  propen-1 
sities  in  deference   to  the  rights  of  others.     And  it 
was  then  that  the  wisdom  of  investing  the  objective  ' 
mind  with  the  power  to  control  those  passions  and  to  , 

1  For  a  full  discussion  of  the  subject,  see  "  A  Scientific  Demon- 
stration of  the  Future  Life." 


190         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN, 

v  direct  their  exercise  and  development  became  mani- 
fest. In  other  words,  it  was  then  that  the  utility  of 

*  the  law  of  suggestion  was  demonstrated ;  for  that 
is  the  law  by  virtue  of  which  reason  became  normally 
the  dominating  power  of  the  duplex  mental  organ- 
ism. That  is  the  law  under  the  provisions  of  which 
mortal  man  was  made  a  free  moral  agent ;  for  it 
invests  him  with  full  power  to  train  his  soul  for  weal 
or  woe  for  this  world  and  the  world  to  come. 

The  process  by  which  this  training  is  accomplished 
is  precisely  the  same  in  man  as  secondary  instincts 
were  acquired  by  the  lower  animals  after  a  brain  had 
been  evolved  and  become  a  part  of  the  mental  equip- 
ment of  sentient  creatures.  That  is  to  say,  the  in- 
stincts of  self-preservation  and  appetency  together 
constitute  the  primary  impulse  which  actuates  man 
substantially  as  it  did  the  lower  animals.  The  objec- 
tive mind,  now  as  then,  reasons  out  the  problems  of 
life  as  they  are  presented,  and  decides  upon  the  best 
course  to  pursue;  and  the  subjective  mind  accepts 
the  suggestion,  acts  upon  it,  and  in  due  time  the 
course  of  conduct  becomes  habitual,  then  instinctive 
and  inheritable.  Thus,  the  objective  mind  is  purely 

1  utilitarian ;  and  being  devoid  of  emotion,  it  coldly 
reasons  out  the  problems  as  they  are  presented,  but 

•always  with  an  eye  single  to  the  question  of  benefit 
to  the  individual  or  the  species.  The  subjective 

:  mind,  on_the^_pther  hand,  accepts  the  utilitarian 
suggestion,  and  when  the  course  of  conduct  once 
becomes  instinctive,  or,  in  other  words,  firmly  fixed 

|  in  the  subjective  mind,  the  impulse  to  carry  it  out  is 
converted  into  an  emotion,  or  a  moral  principle,  or 

,  both,  according  to  the  nature  of  the  action. 


CHAPTER   X. 

EVOLUTION  OF  THE  TWO  INSTINCTS  IN  THE  STATE. 

The  same  Laws  of  Development  prevail  in  States  as  in  Individuals. 

—  All  Aggregations  have  their  Origin  in  Intelligent  Appreciation 
of  the  Necessity  for  Mutual  Protection.  —  Reason  teaches  Mutual 
Helpfulness  and  Forbearance. —  Churches,  Schools,  and  Benevo- 
lent Institutions  follow  in  their  Order. —  Altruism  is  intelligently 
practised.  —  Habit  converts  it  into  an  Instinctive  Emotion.  —  In 
due  Time   Patriotism  becomes    Instinctive.  —  It  is  developed  in 
Proportion  to    Beneficence   of   Institutions.  —  Foreign    War   the 
Supreme  Test  of  Patriotism.  —  Capable  of  Indefinite  Expansion.  — 
Its  Origin  in  Parental  Instinct. —  May  be  expanded  so  as  to  em- 
brace  all    Humanity.  —  Its  Highest   Manifestations  in  the  most 
Progressive  Nations. —  In  such  Nations  it  approaches  Universal 
Altruism.  —  It  becomes  more  than  mere  Love  of  Country. —  It 
becomes  the  Missionary  Agent  of  Christian  Civilization. — Trade 
and  Commerce  its  Promoters. —  The  Incentive  to  all  Effort  and 
all  Progress.  —  It  is  God's  Method  of  inciting  Men   to  Action. — 
Contrast  with  the  "  Gentle  Savage,"  who  neither  works  nor  fights. 

—  Hunger   as   an  Intellectual  Stimulant  alike  with  Animals  and 
Men.  —  Nations  must  be  Prosperous  before  they  can  be  Altru- 
istic.—  God's   Bounty  from  a  Full   Store. —  Accumulations    of 
Wealth  cannot  properly  be   discouraged,  yet   God   requires   an 
Accounting. 

ONLY  a  few  words  will  be  required  to  show,  in 
outline,  that  the  principles  we  have  been  con- 
sidering apply  with  the  same  force  and  pertinency 
to    aggregated   humanity, — to  tribes,    communities, 
states,  and  nations. 

Thus,  when  states  are  formed  by  an  aggregation 
of  communities,  it  is  the  result  of  a  process  of  rea- 
soning by  which  the  conclusion  is  reached  that  the 


192        THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE  OF  MAN. 

interests  of  each  and  all  will  be  best  subserved  by  a 
union  of  forces,  financial  and  military.  That  is  to 
say,  the  principle  of  self-preservation  enters  into  the 
transaction  in  its  incipiency;  the  higher  emotions 
having  little  or  nothing  to  do  with  it  at  that  time 
But  reason  teaches  them  that  inasmuch  as  their 
interests  are  identical,  and  mutual  protection  is  their 
object,  they  should  cultivate  a  mutual  regard,  for- 
bearance, and  helpfulness.  Churches,  schools,  col- 
leges, and  eleemosynary  institutions  soon  follow,  with 
all  that  they  imply;  all  being  the  outgrowth  of  an 
intelligent  understanding  of  the  best  interests  of  the 
community  or  the  state.  In  due  time,  however,  — 
after  these  "  intelligent  actions  have  been  performed 
for  several  generations,  they  are  converted  into 
instincts  and  are  then  inherited."  The  altruistic 
instinct  has  become  a  factor  in  the  national  character, 
and  it  has  become  an  emotional  impulse  of  supreme 
potency.  We  call  it  "  patriotism,"  and  define  the 
word  as  "  love  of  country."  It  is  that,  but  in  its 
higher  implications  it  is  infinitely  more ;  for  it  com- 
prises, not  only  a  sentimental  love  of  one's  country, 
prompting  obedience  to  its  laws  and  to  acts  pro- 
motive  of  its  welfare,  but  to  the  sacrifice  of  property 
and  life  itself  in  defence  of  its  existence,  its  rights, 
and  its  institutions. 

The  patriotism  of  a  free  and  enlightened  people 
is,  in  fact,  one  of  the  best  illustrations  of  the  har- 
monious development  of  the  two  instincts.  The  self- 
regarding  element  enters  into  it,  in  that  protection  of 
the  whole  includes  protection  of  its  component  parts; 
and  this  applies  alike  to  life  and  to  property.  All  acts 
having  for  their  object  a  provision  for  the  common 


TWO  INSTINCTS  IN  THE  STATE.         193 

defence,  or  for  the  promotion  of  national  prosperity, 
must  be  set  down  to  the  credit  of  the  self-regarding 
instinct,  although  the  altruistic    element   may  enter  _ 
into  many  of  them.     But  it  will  invariably  be  found  7  Q^ 
that  a  free  and  enlightened  people,  after  a  few  gener- 
ations of  autonomous  government,  are  more  strongly  ( 
moved  by  altruistic  impulses  than  by  those  that  are 
purely  self-regarding;     and    that   those    acts   which  \ 
inure  to  the  benefit  of  future  generations  far  over- 
balance the  others  in  number  and  importance.     It  i 
is  sometimes  difficult  to  determine  when  the  patriotic 
altruism  of  such  a  people  ceases  to    be    prompted 
solely  by  an  enlightened   reason   and  is   converted ' 
into  a  national    instinctive  emotion.     But   the  time 
always  comes  when  that  question  is  no  longer   in 
doubt;  and  that   time  is  when  war  with   a  foreign 
nation  is  imminent.     When  such  a  time  comes,  if  a  j 
thousand  volunteers  offer  their  services  for  every  one 
that  is  called  for,  we  may  rest  assured  that  patriot-  ] 
ism  in  that  country  is  a  national  instinct,  and  with 
that  people   altruism    is  the  dominant   national  im-  . 
pulse."   I   mention   war  as  a  test  of  the  instinctive 
character  of  patriotism,  for  the  reason  that  until  the  . 
representative  manhood  of  a  nation  is  put  to  that 
test  it  can  never  be  surely  known  whether  or  not  the  j 
patriotic  impulse  is  stronger  than  the  instinct  of  self- 
preservation.     If  it  is,  we  may  safely  conclude  that 
in   that   nation   the   two    instincts    have    been    har-  I 
moniously  developed,  and   that   altruism,  or   other- 
regarding,  with    all   its   implications   of  progressive  \ 
development  of  civilization,  is  the  dominating  national 
characteristic. 

Patriotism,   like    every  other  virtue,  may  be  mis- 

,  ^  '^  -;  _  L-^~.  t-  <- '  ~ .    - 

•  .' 


194        THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE  OF  MAN. 

directed ;  but  the  fact  remains  that  it  is  essentially 
altruistic.  It  is,  moreover,  fairly  representative  of 
progressive  civilization,  for  it  is  capable  of  indefinite 
expansion,  and  it  keeps  exact  pace  with  the  develop- 
ment of  human  intelligence  and  national  virtue.  The 
latter  proposition  is  demonstrated  by  the  fact  that  in 
those  nations  which  enjoy  the  highest  degree  of 
Christian  civilization,  and  whose  governments  are  the 
most  altruistic,  the  patriotism  of  the  people  is  the 
most  intense  and  practical  in  peace  and  potent  in 
war. 

That  it  is  capable  of  indefinite  expansion  is  evi- 
denced by  the  history  of  the  world.  Having  its 
origin  in  the  parental  instinct,  it  began  with  the 
primordial  cell  as  a  primary  instinct.  In  the  process 
of  development  secondary  instincts  were  evolved, 
resulting  in  gregarious  habits  in  the  more  intelligent 
animals.  When  man  appeared  and  began  to  organ- 
ize the  basis  of  human  society,  the  equivalent  of 
what  we  call  patriotism  was  among  the  first  of  the 
secondary  instincts  developed.  It  had  its  basis  in 
the  two  primordial  instincts ;  but  its  first  manifesta- 
tions were  the  results  of  an  intelligent  adaptation 
to  environment.  This  was  eventually  converted 
into  an  instinct,  and  became  an  inheritable  attribute 
of  mind. 

Now,  every  step  in  the  progressive  development 
of  human  government  is  taken  in  precisely  the  same 
way.  Thus,  when  tribes  are  aggregated  into  com- 
munities, it  is  primarily  the  result  of  an  intelligent 
appreciation  of  the  fact  that  self-preservation  for  the 
tribe  and  security  for  future  generations  will  be  best 
provided  for  by  a  union  of  forces.  The  same  is 


TWO  INSTINCTS  IN  THE  STATE.          195 

true  of  every  new  aggregation  of  interests  and  forces 
by  which  states  and  nations  are  formed  under  nor- 
mal conditions.  Reason  points  out  the  path  of 
safety  for  present  and  future  generations,  and  in- 
culcates a  policy  promotive  of  internal  harmony 
and  mutual  forbearance  and  regard.  These  are 
the  suggestions  of  the  aggregated  national  intelli- 
gence. At  first,  however,  there  are  conflicting 
interests  which  give  rise  to  local  selfishness,  and 
thus  counter  suggestions  are  made  which  retard 
the  general  acceptance  of  the  situation.  But  in 
due  time  the  interests  are  harmonized,  and  the 
advantages  of  union  become  manifest  to  all.  The 
natural  result  is  a  growing  regard  for  the  institutions 
that  afford  protection  to  life  and  property  and 
provide  for  the  comfort  and  prosperity  of  future 
generations.  And  this  is  the  emotion  that  eventu- 
ally develops  into  that  passionate_[ove_of_cou ntry 
which  has  been  designated  as  patriotism.  The 
suggestions~oT~  reason  have  been  fully  accepted  by 
the  subjective  mind.  The  resultant  acts  have  been 
performed  until  they  have  become  habitual.  A 
secondary  instinct  has  been  created ;  and  hence- 
forth it  is  a  potent  element  in  the  national  charac- 
ter, and,  like  all  other  instincts  and  attributes  of  the 
subjective  mind,  it  is  the  heritage  of  posterity. 

It  seems  evident,  therefore,  that  the  higher  mani- 
festations of  the  attribute  of  mind  which  we  call 
patriotism  are  much  more  than  a  mere  emotional 
sentiment  of  love  for  one's  country;  for  the  latter 
may  be  inspired  by  the  associations  of  childhood, 
by  the  memories  of  parents  and  the  companions  of 
youth,  or  even  by  the  memories  of  the  beautiful 


196         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE    OF  MAN. 

scenery  of  one's  native  land,  — "  the  orchard,  the 
meadow,  the  deep  tangled  wildwood,"  or  any  loved 
spot  which  one's  infancy  knew.  No  one  is  exempt 
from  the  emotions  inspired  by  such  fond  recollec- 
tions. But  that  emotion  is  not  patriotism  in  the 
higher  sense  of  the  word.  It  has  little  or  nothing  in 
common  with  that  lofty  spirit  of  self-abnegation  which 
prompts  one  to  sacrifice  all  that  he  has,  even  life 
itself,  for  the  preservation  of  the  institutions  of  his 
country.  Such  a  spirit  can  only  be  inspired  by  an 
intelligent  appreciation  of  institutions  that  are  worth 
preserving.  Hence  it  is  that  the,  higher  attribute  of 
mind  which  is  called  patriotism  exists  as  a  national 
characteristic  of  the  people  of  any  country  in  exact 
proportion  to  the  beneficence  of  its  institutions  and 
the  ability  of  its  people  to  appreciate  them  intelli- 
gently. When  this  universal  truth  is  considered  in 
connection  with  the  fact  that  the  higher  patriotism 
we  have  described  is  in  itself  essentially  altruistic,  the 
conclusion  is  inevitable  that  the  emotion  possesses  a 
more  profound  significance  than  is  expressed  or 
implied  by  the  term  by  which  it  is  designated. 

"  It  is,  in   fact,  the  national    or    collective    expression 

(  or  manifestation  of  the  "  evolutionary  instinct,"  the 
progressive    principle,    the    constant   force,    the    im- 

t  pellent  energy  —  creative,  progressive,  and  essentially 
altruistic  —  that  developed    the  organic  world    from 

1   the    moneron   to    man,    and    constitutes  the    motive 
power  that  impels  mankind  onward  and  upward  in 

i    the  path  of  progressive  development  in  every  sphere 

-  of  legitimate  human  activity. 

If  this  proposition  is  true,  there  are  two  evidences 
of  its  truth  that  we  might  reasonably  expect  to  find: 


TWO  INSTINCTS  IN  THE  STATE.          1 97 

First,  we  should  be  sure  to  find  its  highest  manifes- 
tation in  those  nations  that  are  in  the  very  van  of 
human  progress,  for  there  is  necessarily  a  causal 
connection  between  them.  That  is  to  say,  we 
might  expect  to  find  the  people  of  those  nations 
whose  governments  most  clearly  and  practically 
recognize  the  rights  of  man  to  be  the  most  en- 
lightened, enterprising,  and  progressive  in  peace, 
and  in  war  the  bravest  and  the  most  devoted  and 
self-sacrificing. 

Secondly,  we  should  have  a  right  to  expect  that  $*  ^ 
eventually  this  same  altruistic  emotion  would  refuse   ^  i<- 
to  be  circumscribed  by  the  limitations  of  race,  color,  i 
or  geographical  boundaries;   and  that,  on  occasion,, 
we  should  find  the  people  of  great   nations  moved 
by  one  common  altruistic  impulse  to  right  the  wrongs' 
of  suffering  humanity  in  other  lands  than  their  own.  <_ 

The  impulse,  it  is  true,  might  be  misdirected.  All 
missionary  effort  is  liable  to  be  misdirected  and 
carried  forward  on  impracticable  lines.  I  am  not 
arguing  that  question  in  reference  to  any  real  or 
supposable  case.  The  point  is  that  the  impulse  is 
real,  that  it  is  altruistic  in  its  very  essence,  that  its 
existence  as  an  individual  or  a  national  characteristic 
reaches  out  toward  universal  altruism  and__points  to 
that  goal  as  the  manifest  destiny  of  humanity. 

Again,  it  may  be  said  that  selfishness  is  the  main- 
spring of  missionary  effort  alike  in  individuals  and  in 
nations;  that  the  individual  missionary  is  inspired 
by  a  contemplation  of  his  salary,  and  a  nation  by  the 
prospect  of  increased  trade  and  commerce.  It  is 
true  that  as  long  as  man  is  compelled  to  eat  in  order 
to  live,  selfish  considerations  are  liable  to  enter  into 


198         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

all  human  transactions,  however  altruistic  they  may 
be  in  their  essential  nature.  That  particular  neces- 
sity of  animal  existence,  however,  was  one  of  the  ac- 
tive agencies  of  organic  evolution ;  and  in  man  it 
is  still  the  primary  incentive  to  exertion.  Emerson 
(I  think  it  was  Emerson)  once  remarked  that  "  every 
man  is  as  lazy  as  he  dares  to  be."  He  might  well 
have  added  that  the  same  is  true  of  every  sentient 
creature.  Even  the  "little  busy  bee,"  who  in  North- 
ern latitudes  is  compelled  to  "  improve  each  shining 
hour"  in  order  to  provide  food  for  the  winter,  utterly 
refuses  to  do  anything  of  the  kind  after  he  is  trans- 
ported to  a  land  of  perpetual  sunshine  and  flowers.1 

v  The  truth  of  the  remark,  so  far  as  it  pertains  to  man, 
is  illustrated  by  the  fact  that  "  in  isolated  parts  of 

*  the  earth,  where  the  natural  supply  of  food  is  abun- 
dant, as  in  sundry  tropical  islands  of  the  Pacific 
Ocean,  men  have  ceased  from  warfare  and  become 
gentle  and  docile  without  rising  above  the  intellect- 
ual level  of  savagery."2  It  must  be  added  that  this 

I  particular  gentle  savage  has  also  ceased  from  work, 
and  for  him  a  breech-clout  is  a  wardrobe  of  excep- 
tional extravagance.  He  is  "just  as  lazy  as  he  dares 
to  be;"  and  he  dares  everything  because  he  has 
nothing  to  lose  by  idleness  and  nothing  to  gain  by 

\  work.  He  is  peaceful  because  he  has  no  rights 
worth  invading.  Spontaneous  nature  supplies  his 
daily  food.  In  winter  he  is  clothed  with  the  sun ; 

'.  and  his  summer  garment  is  the  shade  of  the  tree 
that  drops  his  daily  bread  into  his  open  mouth. 
Of  course  he  is  gentle  and  docile;  of  course  he  is 

1  Romanes,  Mental  Evolution  in  Animals. 

2  Fiske,  Destiny  of  Man. 


TWO  INSTINCTS  IN  THE  STATE.          199 

lazy ;  of  course  he  has  not  risen  above  the  intellect- 
ual level  of  savagery;  and  of  course  he  never  will 
rise  above  that  level.  An  exceptionally  unfavorable 
environment  has  deprived  him  of  that  incentive  to 
activity  that  is  inspired  by  the  instinct  of  self-pres- 
ervation alike  in  the  lower  animals  and  in  man- 
kind, namely,  the  necessity  of  struggling  for  daily 
sustenance. 

It  is  this  necessity  for  food  that  causes  animals  and 
savages  to  fight  and  to  work.  But  it  is  also  this 
necessity  that  sharpens  their  wits  and  develops  their 
understanding.  And  in  the  highest  civilization  it  is 
still  a  powerful  agency  for  the  development  of  the 
human  intellect;  for,  whilst  peaceful  competition  in 
trade  and  commerce  has  largely  taken  the  place  of 
brute  force  as  a  means  of  supplying  the  necessities 
of  mankind,  it  requires  the  exercise  of  all  the  powers 
of  the  mind  to  achieve  success.  The  necessity  for 
procuring  subsistence,  therefore,  is  not  only  constant 
and  imperative  in  itself,  but  it  compels  the  cultivation 
of  the  intellectual  faculties;  and  in  the  larger  opera- 
tions of  trade  and  foreign  commerce  it  facilitates 
intercourse  with  the  world  at  large  and  promotes 
harmonious  foreign  relations.  These  results,  in  turn, 
directly  or  indirectly,  are  promotive  of  the  develop- 
ment of  altruistic  emotions  in  a  constantly  broaden- 
ing field,  the  grand  result  of  which  must  be  to  bring 
about,  on  a  national  scale,  the  normally  harmonious 
relation  between  the  instinct  of  self-preservation  and 
the  altruistic,  progressive,  evolutionary  instinct  that 
moves  the  world  toward  the  final  goal  of  universal 
altruism. 

No ;  trade  with  foreign  nations  is  not  incompatible 


200        THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

with  the  exercise  of  the  most  exalted  beneficence 
toward  them.  On  the  contrary,  it  affords  the  great- 
est facilities  for  the  establishment  and  maintenance 
of  such  relations.  Besides,  nations,  as  well  as  individ- 
uals, must  be  prosperous  before  they  can  be  altruistic. 
The  instinct  that  accumulates  provides  the  only  means 
for  the  exercise  of  benevolence.  The  hand  of  Charity 
would  be  useless  if  it  could  not  grasp  the  gifts  she 
would  bestow.  The  bounties  which  God  bestows 
upon  his  children  are  taken  from  a  full  store. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  should  be  remembered  by 
nations,  as  well  as  individuals,  that  God  requires  a 
strict  accounting  for  the  uses  for  which  his  bounty  is 
employed,  and  that  to  whomsoever  much  is  given,  of 
him  shall  much  be  required. 

Trade  in  itself,  when  honestly  and  properly  con- 
ducted, with  due  regard  to  the  rights  of  all  concerned, 
is  a  happy  illustration  of  the  harmonious  develop- 
ment of  the  two  instincts,  — the  self-regarding  and  the 
other-regarding,  —  for  whilst  it  furnishes  subsistence 
for  those  who  are  engaged  in  it,  the  surplus  accumu- 
lations invariably  redound  to  the  benefit  of  others. 
The  accumulation  of  wealth,  therefore,  cannot  prop- 
erly be  discouraged ;  but  it  will  be  a  happy  day  for 
humanity  when  all  millionaires  shall  hold  it  to  be 
"disgraceful  to  die  rich."1  It  is  an  encouraging  sign 
of  the  times  that  the  example  has  been  set  by  one 
who  is  daily  giving  evidence  of  the  sincerity  of  his 
words  by  munificent  benefactions  on  lines  of  purest 
altruism. 

I  have  now  briefly  indicated  the  lines  upon  which 
nations  progress  from  savagery  to  civilization,  —  from 
1  The  words  of  Andrew  Carnegie. 


TWO  INSTINCTS  IN  THE  STATE.         2OI 

instinctive  self-regarding  to  instinctive  altruism.  I 
have  shown  that  nations  and  individuals  are  governed 
by  the  same  psychological  laws,  and  that  those  laws 
are  the  same  that  prevail  in  the  life  of  the  lower 
animals.  The  law  of  suggestion  has  been  the  mov- 
ing agency  of  psychic  development  from  the  time 
when  a  brain  was  developed  in  animals_untijjiow ; 
the  process  of  development  in  animals  has  been  by 
intelligent  adjustments  to  environment,  which,  by 
being  frequently  performed,  have  become  automatic 
in  the  individual,  and  then  inherited  till  they  become 
automatic  habits  in  the  race  (Romanes),  or,  in  other 
words,  until  they  are  transformed  into  secondary  in- 
stincts. When  man  appeared  he  was  governed  by 
the  same  law  of  development,  and  his  whole  character 
is  made  up  of  hereditary  instincts  thus  acquired,  plus 
the  sum  of  his  individual  acquirements.  I  have 
shown  that  the  psychical  character  of  aggregated 
humanity,  whether  of  tribes,  communities,  states,  or 
nations,  is  developed  in  precisely  the  same  way  and 
under  precisely  the  same  laws.  That  is  to  say,  it 
has  been  shown  that  secondary  instincts  are  formed, 
first  by  intelligent  adjustments  to  environment,  re- 
sulting in  habits  that  eventually  become  converted 
into  instincts  and  are  then  inherited,  till  they  become 
habits  in  the  state  or  nation ;  and  that  the  tendency 
or  trend  of  these  developments  is  always  onward  and 
upward  toward  perfection ;  that  in  the  organic  world 
the  final  goal  was  man ;  that  in  men  and  nations  the 
final  goal  is  universal  altruism.  I  have  shown  that 
behind  this  process  of  development  there  exists,  in- 
herent in  all  sentient  creatures,  from  the  primordial 
cell  to  man,  a  constant,  forceful,  impellent  energy 


202         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE  OF  MAN. 

that  irresistibly  impels  all  living  beings  forward  in 
the  lines  of  progressional  development;  that  this 
energy  is  embodied,  so  to  speak,  in  a  primary  in- 
stinct; that  in  its  every  form  of  manifestation,  from 
the  moneron  to  man,  it  is  essentially  altruistic  in  that 
it  constantly  prompts  to  acts  which  redound  to  the 
benefit  of  future  generations  ;  that  it  is  normally 
paramount  to  all  other  instincts,  including  the  in- 
stinct of  self-preservation ;  and  hence,  that  the  most 
potent  psychic  force  in  nature,  normally  developed, 
irresistibly  impels  mankind  toward  the  final  consum- 
mation which  was  foreshadowed  by  the  Man  of  Naza- 
reth, —  universal  altruism. 

It  remains  to  show  that  the  higher  attributes  of  the 
character  of  man,  namely,  his  moral  and  religious 
nature,  are  developed  under  the  same  laws  and  by  the 
same  processes  that  we  have  been  considering.  The 
next  chapter  will  be  devoted  to  a  brief  examination  of 
that  process. 


CHAPTER  XI. 

EVOLUTION  OF  CONSCIENCE  AND   RELIGIOUS 
PRINCIPLES. 

Normal  Control  of  the  Subjective  Mind.  —  When  Conscience  becomes 
Instinctive.  —  A  Secondary  Instinct.  —  The  Ultimate  Instinctive 
Emotion  of  the  Human  Soul.  —  Dominates  all  other  Emotions. 

—  It  was  developed  precisely  the  same  as  were  all  other  Second- 
ary Instincts.  —  It  was  the  Result  of  the  Inductive  Reasoning  of 
the    Objective   Mind.  —  Facts   of  Observation  and   Experience 
resulted  in  the  Maxim,  "  Honesty  is  the  Best  Policy."  —  This  is 
Mr.  Spencer's  Conscience.  —  It  culminates  just  where  Real  Con- 
science begins.  —  It  is  the  Utilitarian  Conscience.  —  It  is  a  Step 
in  the   Process    of   Development,   not   the   Process    itself.  —  It 
constitutes  a  Suggestion  to  the  Subjective  Mind.  —  The  Sugges- 
tion is  accepted  and  deductively  carried  to  Higher  Conclusions. 

—  It  is  thus  reinforced  by  every  Religious  Principle  or  Emotion. 

—  It  is  further  assisted  by  Intuition. —  As  with  the  Lower  Animals, 
so  with  Man.  —  Every  Step  in  Advance  is  accompanied  by  Increased 
Powers  of  Intuitive   Perception  of  Essential   Truth.  —  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  is  an  Example.  —  The  Older  Prophets.  —  Conscience, 
however,  may  be  perverted.  —  Hence  the  Inquisition  and  Reli- 
gious Wars  ;  hence  Cranks.  —  Perverted  or  unperverted,  it  is  the 
Strongest  Emotion  of  the  Human  Soul.  —  Perverted  Conscience 
the  Exception  ;  hence  Progress  toward  the  Higher  Altruism.  —  It 
is  when  Conscience  becomes  Instinctive  that  the  Subjective  Mind 
assumes  the  Ascendancy.  —  The  Suggestions  of  Conscience  over- 
shadow all  other  Suggestions.  —  At  the  Threshold  of  the  Moral 
and  Religious  Realm  the  Soul  asserts  its  Normal  Supremacy. 

WHEN  I  say  that  there  comes  a  time  in  the 
history  of  every  fully  and  normally  developed 
man  or  woman  when  the  subjective  mind  rightfully 
and  normally  assumes  the  ascendancy,  it  will  seem 
like  a  contradiction  of  what  has  been  said  of  the  law 
of  suggestion  and  of  the  normal  dominancy  of  the 


204        THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE  OF  MAN. 

<  objective  mind  under  that  law.      It  is,  nevertheless, 

;  true  that   the  time  does  come  when  the  subjective 

!  mind  assumes  a  normal  and  a  rightful  supremacy.  It 
is  not,  however,  an  exceptional  violation  of  the  law 

i  of  suggestion,  but  a  legitimate  and  direct  consequence 
of  that  law.  The  time  when  this  psychological  phe- 
nomenon is  witnessed  is  when  conscience  becomes  an 

'  instinctive  quality  or  emotion  of  the  individual.  A 
very  few  words  will  make  my  meaning  clear. 

Conscience,  like  every  other  emotion  of  the  human 
mind  that  distinguishes  it  from  the  mind  of  the  brute, 
is  a  secondary  instinct.  It  is,  in  fact,  the  ultimate 
instinctive  emotion  of  the  human  mind  as  manifested 
in  this  life.  It  is,  moreover,  the  strongest  emotion  of 
the  human  soul,  for  it  is  reinforced  by  all  the  higher 
instinctive  emotions  that  characterize  mankind  in 
the  higher  stages  of  civilization. 

And  here  let  me  say,  parenthetically,  that  in  deal- 
ing with  the  subject  of  the  religious  emotions  I  shall 
take  as  my  example  the  normal  development  of 
conscience;  and  that  I  employ  that  attribute  as  an 
illustration  because  it  is,  in  a  sense,  inclusive  of  all 
the  higher  emotions  of  the  soul. 

'r  Conscience,  in  the  ordinary  acceptation  of  the 
term,  covers  everything  in  man's  nature  that  has  to 

'  do  with  the  decision  and  direction  of  moral  conduct. 

,  Ethically  considered,  it  has  been  defined  as  "  the 
power  or  faculty  in  man  by  which  he  distinguishes 
between  the  right  and  wrong  in  conduct  and  character, 

j  and  which  imperatively  commands  and  obligates  him 
to  do  the  right  and  abstain  from  doing  the  wrong."1 
The  latter  half  of  this  definition  may  be  accepted 

1  Standard  Dictionary. 


CONSCIENCE  AND  RELIGIOUS  PRINCIPLES.   2O$ 

as  a  sufficiently  exact  definition  of  conscience  for 
present  purposes.  But  the  first  part  is  descriptive  of 
an  intellectual,  perceptive,  discriminative  power  or 
faculty,  and  not  of  an  emotion.  The  impulse  that 
"  imperatively  commands  and  obligates"  is  emotive, 
and  not  the  discriminative  power  that  distinguishes. 
It  is  true,  as  we  shall  see  later  on,  that  the  discrim- 
inative power  may  become  intuitional,  but  the  dis- 
tinction holds  good  nevertheless. 

The  power  or  faculty  in  man  which  ordinarily 
distinguishes  between  right  and  wrong  was  originally 
purely  intellectual.  It  was  the  result  of  long  ages  of 
observation  and  experience.  In  other  words,  it  was 
the  result  of  the  exercise  of  the  power  of  inductive 
reasoning;  the  observation  and  experience  of  hu- 
manity furnishing  the  facts  from  which  to  generalize. 
The  grand  result  of  this  age-long  process  was  such 
summations  of  human  experience  as  the  maxim, 
"  Honesty  is  the  best  policy." 

This  is  the  outcome  of  the  reasoning  of  the  purely 
intellectual,  unemotional,  utilitarian,  objective  mind. 
It  is  not  a  great  moral  principle.  It  is  not  even 
honest.  It  is  a  cold  statement  of  a  matter  of 
policy.  It  is  a  statement  of  a  bald  fact  that  can 
be  rendered  into  a  homelier  phrase  without  chang- 
ing its  meaning  in  the  slightest  degree ;  namely,  "  On 
the  whole,  -it  pays  best  to  deal  honestly."  It  is 
the  cold,  calculating,  commercial  conscience  of  the 
utilitarian  world ;  but  it  possesses  no  more  vital 
honesty,  morality,  or  religion  than  do  the  statistical 
tables  of  an  insurance  actuary. 

It  is,  however,  the  best  specimen  of  a  conscience 
that  is  dreamed  of  in  the  philosophy  of  Herbert 


206        THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

Spencer;  and  he  gives  the  maxim  —  "  Honesty  is  the 
best  policy  "  —  as  the  "  summation  "  of  human  experi- 
ence in  the  moral  and  religious  world.1  And  this 
conclusion  is  the  direct  and  only  legitimate  outcome 
of  his  "  doctrine  of  utility  "  and  selfishness,  of  which 
I  have  before  spoken.  I  do  not,  however,  complain 
of  Mr.  Spencer's  conclusion  that  the  maxim  quoted 
is  the  utilitarian  outcome  of  his  doctrine  of  utility; 
for  he  is  obviously  right.  What  I  do  object  to  is  his 
doctrine  that  the  maxim  is  the  summation  of  all 
religious  and  moral  experiences.  That  is  to  say,  the 
necessary  implication  of  his  philosophy  is  that  all 
moral  and  religious  sentiments  were  antecedent  to 
the  maxim.  He  recognizes  nothing  as  the  outcome 
of  the  maxim  itself  outside  of  its  utility  as  a  rule  of 
civil  conduct  which,  if  followed  strictly,  will  serve  to 
keep  men  out  of  the  penitentiary. 

Doubtless  the  world  performed  many  moral  and 
religious  acts  before  the  maxim  was  formulated. 
Otherwise  there  would  have  been  no  means  of  as- 
certaining the  comparative  utility  of  good  and  bad 
actions;  and  the  agnostic  world  would  still  be  in 
doubt  as  to  which  would  pay  the  greatest  dividends 
"  in  the  long  run."  But  Mr.  Spencer  stops  with  the 
maxim.  It  is,  in  his  philosophy,  the  grand  summa- 
tion of  moral  and  religious  experiences.  It  is  the 
"  conscience  "  of  the  Spencerian  philosophy,  if  indeed 
that  great  philosopher  can  be  said  to  have  recognized 
the  existence  of  such  a  faculty  in  the  human  mind. 
It  must  be  presumed  that  he  did  not,  since  the  word 
itself  does  not  appear  to  form  a  part  of  his  psychologi- 
cal vocabulary. 

1  Principles  of  Psychology,  part  ix.  p.  620. 


CONSCIENCE  AND  RELIGIOUS  PRINCIPLES.   2O/ 

However,  it  does  not  appear  that  he  recognizes 
any  higher  standard  of  morality  or  of  religion  or 
of  altruism,  or  of  human  conduct  in  any  of  the 
relations  of  man  to  his  fellow-men  or  to  God,  than 
that  embraced  in  the  maxim.  It  is,  indeed,  im- 
possible that  the  philosophy  of  selfishness  and  the 
doctrine  of  utility  should  lead  to  any  other  than  a 
selfishly  utilitarian  generalization.  From  his  view- 
point, therefore,  Mr.  Spencer  is  logically  right  in  his 
induction. 

But,  like  most  of  the  other  "  great  principles  "  of 
the  agnostic  philosophers,  the  maxim  in  question 
is  not  a  principle,  or  a  law  of  nature,  in  the  proper 
acceptation  of  the  terms.  Like  natural  selection,  it 
is  incidental  to  the  great  law  of  evolutionary  develop- 
ment. It  marks  a  step  in  the  process  of  progressive 
psychological  development,  and  not  the  consumma- 
tion of  that  process.  The  great  psychological  con- 
summation of  the  evolutionary  process  is  universal 
altruism,  another  name  for  which  is  universal  hon- 
esty,—  not  the  honesty  that  is  instigated  by  motives 
of  policy;  not  the  honesty  that  is  based  upon  careful 
estimates  of  comparative  chances  for  realizing  divi- 
dends, not  the  honesty  that  finds  its  inspiration  in  the 
statistical  tables  of  a  moral  actuary;  but  an  honesty 
that  is  instigated  by  an  instinctive  love  of  right  because 
it  is  right,  by  an  intuitive  apprehension  of  the  eternal 
principles  of  right,  by  an  irresistible  impulse  to  do 
the  right  and  abstain  from  doing  the  wrong.  In 
short,  tjieJinaLgoal  of  psychological  evolution  is  the 
development  in  man  of  a  conscience. 

Now,  as  before  remarked,  conscience  is  a  secondary 
instinct;  and  it  is  developed  precisely  as  all  other 


208         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

secondary  instincts  are  developed.  That  is  to  say, 
the  first  step  is  an  intelligent  adaptation  to  environ- 
ment. The  resultant  acts  constitute  suggestions  to 
the  subjective  mind.  These  suggestions  are  accepted, 
and  the  acts  gradually  become  habitual,  then  auto- 
matic, and  are  finally  converted  into  inheritable 
instincts. 

The  process  of  developing  an  instinctive  conscience 
is  precisely  the  same  in  principle.  It  is  much  more 
complicated,  and  it  consumes  a  greater  amount  of 
time,  owing  to  the  infinite  complexities  of  man's  en- 
vironment. But  the  processes  are  psychologically 
identical. 

Thus,  since  the  advent  of  civilization,  the  environ- 
mental conditions  to  which  man  finds  it  necessary  to 
adapt  himself  are  largely  of  a  moral,  ethical,  and 
religious  nature.  In  his  dealings  with  his  fellow-men 
he  is  constantly  confronted  with  conditions  that  render 
it  necessary  to  decide  questions  of  right  and  wrong 
and  to  choose  intelligently  between  the  two.  In 
other  words,  the  cool,  calculating,  utilitarian  objective 
mind  has  been  engaged,  since  the  dawn  of  civilization, 
in  a  process  of  inductive  inquiry  having  in  view  the 
solution  of  the  question  as  to  what  it  is  best  for  man 
to  do  when  he  has  the  power  of  choice  between  evil 
and  good,  between  honest  dealing  with  his  neighbor 
and  selfishness  and  wrong.  The  result  of  this  age- 
long induction  has  been  formulated  by  people  of  the 
higher  civilization  —  that  is,  by  those  who  have  had 
the  benefit  of  the  greatest  range  of  observation  and  ex- 
perience —  in  some  such  generalizations  as  "  Honesty 
is  the  best  policy." 

This,  as  we  have  already  observed,  is  the  Ultima 


CONSCIENCE  AND  RELIGIOUS  PRINCIPLES.    209 

Thule  of  psychological  development  in  the  moral  and 
religious  worlds,  according  to  the  Spencerian  philos- 
ophy. It  is  the  conscience  of  the  doctrine  of  utility. 
Here,  then,  we  must  part  company  with  Mr.  Spencer 
and  his  worshippers;  for  here  is  the  very  beginning, 
the  primary  step,  toward  the  development  of  a  true 
conscience. 

The  intelligent  reader  has  already  anticipated  me 
when  I  say  that  in  the  process  of  adapting  himself 
to  his  environment,  social,  political,  moral,  and  reli- 
gious, man  has  reasoned  up  to  the  conclusion  em- 
braced in  the  maxim ;  and  that  that  and  kindred 
summations  of  intelligent  observation  and  experi- 
ence constitute  suggestions  to  the  subjective  mind ; 
and  that  the  resultant  acts,  at  first  intelligent  and 
deliberate,  afterwards  become  habitual  and  auto- 
matic in  the  individual,  and  are  finally  converted 
into  instincts.  And  I  may  here  remark,  paren- 
thetically, that  this  is  the  only  possible  process  by 
which  conscience  can  become  hereditary;  for  it  is 
only  those  qualities  of  mind  that  become  what  we 
call,  for  the  want  of  a  better  term,  "  instinctive," 
that  are  inheritable.  In  other  words,  it  is  only 
those  qualities  or  faculties  of  mind  that  become 
incorporated  into  the  subjective  mind  that  become 
inheritable  characteristics  of  a  race  or  species.  This 
is  as  true  of  the  higher  qualities  of  mind  as  it  is  of 
the  instincts  of  the  lower  animals. 

Hence  it  is  that  when  conscience  becomes  instinc- 
tive it  becomes  in  the  highest  degree  emotional ; 
and  it  is  a  matter  of  common  observation  that  when 
highly  developed,  and  especially  when  it  is  re- 
inforced by  other  instinctive  emotions,  it  is  the 

•4 


210         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

strongest  and  most  powerful  emotion  of  the  human 
soul. 

The  process  of  development  is  easily  understood 
by  those  who  have  followed  me  in  the  earlier  chap- 
ters of  this  book.  As  already  pointed  out,  the  utili- 
tarian suggestion  that  honesty  pays  best  in  the  long 
run  is  instantly  seized  by  the  subjective  mind.  But 
that  suggestion  is  of  small  moment  in  itself  com- 
pared to  the  deductions  derivable  from  it.  It  must 
be  remembered  in  this  connection  that,  whilst  the 
subjective  mind  is  incapable  of  inductive  reasoning, 
its  deductive  powers  are  potentially  perfect.  That 
is  to  say,  it  cannot  institute  an  independent  system 
of  gathering  facts  from  which  to  reason  up  to  gen- 
eral principles;  but  once  a  general  principle  is  estab- 
lished and  conveyed  to  it  by  suggestion,  it  will  reason 
deductively  from  that  principle  to  all  legitimate,  logi- 
cal conclusions  with  inerrant  exactitude. 

Now,  the  general  principle  in  the  case  under  con- 
sideration is  embraced  in  the  maxim  quoted  above. 
It  is  a  natural  deduction  to  generalize  the  principle 
still  further  into  "  It  is  always  best  to  do  right." 
It  is  but  a  matter  of  deduction  to  infer  that  since  it 
is  always  best  for  man  in  this  world  to  deal  honestly 
with  his  fellow-men,  it  must  also  redound  to  his  bene- 
fit in  the  world  to  come.  Thus,  the  instinct  of  self- 
preservation  is  appealed  to,  first,  in  the  maxim  itself, 
which  pertains  to  this  world,  and,  secondly,  in  the 
deduction,  which  pertains  to  the  next. 

Again,  it  is  but  a  matter  of  deduction  to  infer  that 
since  it  is  always  best  to  do  right,  it  must  be  because 
it  is  pleasing  in  the  sight  of  God ;  and  thus  the  in- 
stinctive conscience  is  strongly  reinforced  by  the 
instinct  of  religious  worship. 


CONSCIENCE  AND  RELIGIOUS  PRINCIPLES.    211 

I  have  already  spoken  of  the  evolutionary  or  altru- 
istic instinct  as  being  normally  stronger  than  the 
instinct  of  self-preservation.  It  is  a  matter  of  the 
most  obvious  deduction  to  correlate  conscience  wit h 
altruism_and  thus  unite  two  of  the  strongest  impulses 
of  the  human  soul. 

Again,   I  have   shown   elsewhere   that  when   one 
faculty  of  the  subjective  mind  is  excited  to  activity 
it   naturally   tends    to   stimulate    all    its    correlative 
faculties.     So  true  is  this  that  it  has  passed  into  a 
proverb,  "Pity  is   akin  to  love."     It  has  also  been* 
noted  by  many  philosophers  that  religious  revivals  ' 
tend  to  the  excitation  of  other  than  purely  religious  / 
emotions.     All  these  apparent  anomalies  are  easily 
explicable  on  the  theory  that  all  the  emotions,  when    < 
normally   developed    and    unperverted,    are    purely 
altruistic  in  nature  and  function,  and    are  therefore  ' 
so  intimately  interrelated  that  the  excitation  of  one 
emotion    stimulates   all    its    correlatives,   especially 
where  there  are  two  or  more  coexistent  causes  of  | 
excitation.     Thousands  of  illustrative  examples  will 
be  recalled  by  every  intelligent  reader,  especially  if 
he  is  acquainted  with  the  abnormal  tendencies  often  / 
exhibited  by  psychics.     This,  however,  is  foreign  to 
my  present  purpose,  and   it  is  only  mentioned  for 
the  purpose  of  illustrating  my  meaning  when  I  say  I 
that  the  excitation  of  one  faculty  or  emotion  of  the 
subjective  mind  naturally  tends  to  stimulate  all  the  ' 
other  faculties  that  are  interrelated. 

When,  therefore,  conscience  becomes  an  active 
principle  in  the  subjective  mind,  it  stimulates  every 
emotion  or  faculty  that  is  concerned  with  questions 
of  right  or  wrong  in  human  conduct.  Now,  the  one 


212         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

great  faculty  of  the  subjective  mind_that  is  the  nor- 
mal correlative  of  conscience  is  the  faculty  of  intui- 
tive perception  of  essential  truth  or  first  principles. 
By  essential  truth  I  mean  the  truth  that  it  is  essen- 
tial for  each  sentient  creature  to  know  relative  to  the 
laws  of  its  being.  This  knowledge  is  supplied  by 
instinct,  and  it  exists  in  the  subjective  mind  of  each 
sentient  being,  from  the  moneron  to  man ;  and  it  is 
exactly  proportioned  in  each  to  its  stage  of  develop- 
ment and  its  consequent  needs. 

When,  therefore,  man  becomes  highly  developed, 
morally  and  religiously,  and  conscience  has  become 
an  active  principle  in  his  subjective  mind,  the  faculty 
of  intuitive  perception  of  essential  truth  is  developed 
in  exact  proportion.  Were  this  not  true,  man,  espe- 
cially highly  developed  man,  would  constitute  an 
exception  to  the  general  law.  We  know  that  it  is 
true  of  the  lower  animals,  from  the  primordial  cell 
upward.  We  know  that  man  is  descended  from  the 
lower  animals,  and  that  the  laws  of  his  growth  and 
evolutionary  development  are  identical  with  those  of 
his  humble  ancestry.  Besides,  we  are  not  without 
examples  attesting  its  truth  in  relation  to  man.  The 
Great  Exemplar  was,  of  course,  Jesus  of  Nazareth. 
His  conscience  was,  without  doubt,  developed  in 
absolute  perfection.  And  we  know  now  that  his  in- 
tu i tive  knowledge  of  the  laws,  of  the  rruman_gp u  1 , 
including_the_great  ^principles  o f_rjght  and  wrong, 
was  correspondingly  exact.  I  say  we  know  this, 
because  modern  science  is  powerless  to  disprove  one 
essential  tenet  of  his  doctrine.  It_can  only^  confirm. 
Other  great  exemplars  are  not  wanting,  differing 
widely  in  degree,  but  attesting  the  soundness  of  the 


CONSCIENCE  AND  RELIGIOUS  PRINCIPLES.    213 

principle.  Some  of  the  old  prophets  were  highly 
endowed  with  the  powers  of  intuition,  as  shown  by 
the  wonderful  accuracy  of  some  of  their  previsions. 
Nor  are  modern  instances  entirely  wanting.  This, 
however,  is  not  the  proper  place  to  discuss  this 
branch  of  the  general  subject  in  detail.  It  is  intro- 
duced here  merely  for  the  purpose  of  completing  my 
outline  sketch  of  the  process  by  which  conscience  is 
developed  in  normally  constituted  men  and  women; 
and  to  show  what  a  strong  moral  energy  is  resi- 
dent within  the  man  in  whom  conscience  has  been 
developed  on  lines  of  perfect  truth. 

I  am  speaking,  of  course,  of  the  normal  method 
of  developing  conscience  in  the  normal  man.  Con- 
science, however,  like  every  other  faculty  or  quality 
of  the  human  mind,  may  be  perverted  by  wrong  edu- 
cation or  an  unfavorable  environment.  The  Inquisi- 
tion was  the  result  of  perverted  conscience.  Religious 
wars  are  frequently  the  results  of  perverted  or  un- 
enlightened conscience.  In  every-day  life,  among 
highly  civilized  peoples,  perverted  conscience  often 
manifests  itself  in  the  utter  inability  of  certain  classes 
of  people  to  adapt  themselves  to  their  environment. 
Thus,  the  cranky  reformer,  the  fundamental  tenet  of 
whose  creed  is  that  "  whatever  is,  is  wrong,"  is  often 
merely  a  victim  of  aperverted  conscience.  It  somjL- 
times  amounts  to  a  moral  insanity  that  is  just  as  pro- 
nounced and  often  as  offensive  as  total  depravity. 

But,  perverted  or  unperverted,  conscience  is  by  far 
the  strongest  emotion  of  the  human  soul ;  for  the 
veriest  physical  coward  will  often  face  the  cannon's 
mouth  for  conscience'  sake,  even  in  a  bad  cause.  # 

Fortunately  for  humanity,  perverted  conscience  is 


3V^ 


214        THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

the  exception  rather  than  the  rule.  Were  it  not 
so,  mediaeval  conditions  would  still  prevail.  More 
fortunate  still*  it  is  for  humanity  that  the  inherent 
strength  and  energy  of  conscience  as  an  agent  of 
progressive  development  of  the  good  there  is  in  man, 
depends  entirely  upon  the  character  of  the  correla- 
tive emotions  and  faculties  that  are  concerned  in  its 
development.  Thus,  if  one's  conscience  is  based 
entirely  upon  the  instinct  of  self-preservation,  —  that 
is  to  say,  if  fear  of  punishment  for  wrong-doing  is  the 
only  incentive  to  right  living,  —  it  is  an  imperfectly 
developed  conscience,  if  indeed  it  can  properly  be 
designated  as  conscience.  The  same  is  true  even  if 
it  is  reinforced  by  the  instinct  of  religious  worship. 
Again,  a  conscience  that  is  based  entirely  upon  the 
altruistic  instinct  or  emotion  is  still  lacking  in  some 
of  the  essential  elements  of  a  perfectly  developed 
conscience. 

I  assume  that  in  all  the  cases  above  mentioned 
there  is  still  lacking  an  essential  element,  for  one  very 
good  and,  as  I  think,  sufficient  reason  ;  and  that  is 
that  history  does  not  furnish  an  example  where  such 
partial  developments  were  materially  assisted  by  in- 
tuition. On  the  other  hand,  we  have  numerous 
examples,  culminating  in  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  where 
a  conscience  based  upon  a  harmonious  development 
of  the  three  great  instincts  —  namely,J:he  instinct  of 
.  self-preservation,  the  altruistic  instinct,  and  the  in- 
1  stinct  of  religious  worship  —  was  reinforced  By  an  in- 
tuitive  perception  of  the  eternal  principles  of  right 


an    wrong. 

,<•  £>  Ur  j"     Now,  I  have  already  pointed  out  the  fact  that  each 
sentient  creature  is  endowed  with  an  instinctive  or 


CONSCIENCE  AND  RELIGIOUS  PRINCIPLES.    215 

intuitive  knowledge  of  the  laws  of  its  being,  and  that 
this  knowledge  is  exactly  proportioned  to  its  stage  of  \ 
mental  or  physical  development,  or,  in  other  words,  , 
in  exact  proportion  to  its  wants  and  necessities.     I 
have  also  shown  that  man  constitutes  no  exception 
to   this    rule.     It   is   also   true   that  this   instinctive 
knowledge  is  never  attained  in  advance  of  conditions 
that  render  it  necessary. 

We  have  a  right  to  expect,  therefore,  that  when 
the  process  of  developing  man's  moral  nature  com- 
mences, and  the  proper  stage  of  development  has 
been  reached,  his  intuitions  will  be  developed  in 
exact  proportion  to  his  needs.  Accordingly  we  find 
that,  in  the  evolution  of  conscience,  at  a  certain, 
definite  stage  of  that  evolution,  man  does  develop 
the  power  of  intuitive  perception  of  the  essential 
truth  pertaining  to  conscience.  Obviously  the  only 
general  truth  answering  to  the  necessities  of  con- 
science is  that  embraced  in  the  principles  of  right 
and  wrong.  That  is  the  knowledge  required  to  en- 
able man  to  perform  all  his  duties  in  perfection. 
We  further  find  that  man  never  attains  that  intuition 
until  he  seeks  to  develop  his  conscience  upon  the 
basis  of  the  three  primary  instincts,  never  excluding 
or  subordinating  that  of  religious  worship. 

The  inevitable  inference  is,  man  owes  duties  to  his 
God  as  well  as  to  his  fellow-men  and  to  himself,  the  ' 
last-named  being  always  subordinate  to  the  others ;  ( 
and  that  a  perfect  conscience  must  be  based  upon 
those  instincts  which  include  all  three  lines  of  duty. 

It  is  obvious  that  any  one  of  the  three  instincts 
would  be  sufficient  to  convert  the  principle  involved 
in  the  suggestion  into  an  instinctive  impulse  of  dom- 


2l6         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE  OF  MAN. 

inating  potency.  But  when  the  three  are  combined, 
as  they  are  in  every  normally  constituted  person, 
conscience  becomes  an  instinctive  emotion  of  such 
supreme  power  that  the  gates  of  hell  cannot  pre- 
vail against  it.  It  is  then  the  strongest  instinct  of 
the  human  soul.  Then  it  is  that  men  will  face  the 
cannon's  mouth  for  conscience'  sake.  Then  it  is 
that  men  and  women  will  welcome  torture  and  tribu- 
lation in  this  world,  and  calmly  yield  up  their  lives 
at  the  stake  rather  than  surrender  the  convictions  of 
conscience. 

Thus  it  is,  and  then  it  is,  that  the  subjective  mind 
of  man,  for  the  first  time  in  all  its  history,  rightfully 
and  normally  assumes  the  ascendancy.  It  is  not 
because  the  law  of  suggestion  has  been  suspended  or 
modified,  but  because  the  auto-suggestions  of  con- 
science are  more  potent  than  any  suggestions  that 
can  be  brought  to  bear  against  its  convictions.  This 
is  the  safeguard  which  the  laws  of  nature  throw 
around  every  human  soul  that  is  possessed  of  a  con- 
science, and  which  forever  guards  and  protects  it, 
under  all  circumstances  and  conditions,  from  the 
suggestions  of  crime  or  immorality. 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  at  the  very  threshold  of 
the  moral  and  spiritual  realm  the  soul  stands  ready 
to  assume  its  rightful  supremacy.  It  is  its  own  do- 
main, its  native  realm,  for  it  extends  over  from 
time  to  eternity;  and  the  soul  alone  is  concerned 
with  both.  It  is  then  that  the  soul  becomes  the  "  in- 
ward monitor,"  the  "  still  small  voice  "  which  leads 
mankind  in  the  ways  of  truth  and  righteousness. 


II. 

PSYCHOLOGY   AND   CHRISTIAN   THEISM. 


part  II. 

PSYCHOLOGY   AND   CHRISTIAN  THEISM. 


CHAPTER   I. 

PRELIMINARY. 

Facts  of  Evolution  to  be  distinguished  from  Theories  of  Evolution- 
ists.—  Theistic  Argument,  per  se,  to  be  based  upon  Facts  presented 
by  Antitheistic  Evolutionists,  —  Darwin,  Haeckel,  and  Romanes. 
—  Their  Arguments  for  Evolution  to  be  utilized  as  a  Basis  of 
Theistic  Conclusions.  —  Exception  to  be  taken  to  Subsidiary 
Hypotheses.  —  Distinction  to  be  drawn  between  Theisms.  —  The- 
ism, per  se,  proven  by  Facts  of  Evolution.  —  Christian  Theism  by 
Evolution  and  Psychology.  —  The  World  interested  alone  in 
Christian  Theism.  —  Is  Christian  Civilization  founded  on  Truth 
or  Error?  —  The  New  Psychology  a  Necessary  Factor. —  The 
Old  Psychologies  Inadequate  to  a  Solution  of  the  Problem. 

IN  order  that  there  may  be  no  misunderstanding 
either  on  the  part  of  the  general  reader  or  of 
possible  atheistic  critics,  I  desire  to  have  it  clearly 
understood  at  the  outset  that  the  theistic  argument 
which  follows  will  be  based  upon  the  facts  of  organic 
and  mental  evolution  as  stated  by  Darwin  and  his 
followers.  Among  the  latter  I  desire  to  make  par- 
ticular mention  of  the  names  of  Haeckel  and  Ro- 
manes; of  the  former  because  (r)  he  was  a  follower 
of  Darwin,  (2)  he  was  indorsed  by  Darwin  in  the 
later  editions  of  his  works,  (3)  he  treated  the  subject 


220         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

of  man's  evolution  more  fully  than  did  Darwin,  and 
(4)  because  he  was  more  radically  atheistic  in  his 
expressed  conclusions  than  was  Darwin  himself.  I 
mention  Romanes  for  practically  the  same  reasons. 
He  was  a  follower  and  an  intimate  personal  friend  of 
Darwin,  and  his  views  at  the  time  he  wrote  the  works 
from  which  I  have  quoted  were  as  pronouncedly 
atheistic  as  were  those  of  either  Darwin  or  Haeckel.1 

I  am  thus  particular  in  segregating  the  facts  stated 
by  the  evolutionary  philosophers  from  their  theories 
or  hypotheses  for  the  reason  that  I  accept  their  facts 
and  shall  base  my  argument  upon  them.  _I__also  ac- 
cept and  shall  insist  upon  the  general  theory  that 
man  is  descended  from  the  lower  animals ;  that  the 
potentials  of  manhood  resided  in  the  primordial  cell ; 
that  all  instincts,  primary  and  secondary,  are  inherited 
as  long  as  they  are  useful ;  and  finally,  that  man  is 
t\\ejummum  bomim,  so  to  speak,  of  all  ancestral  forms 
and  faculties,  —  the  final  goaloforganic  evolution. 

These  are  the  principal  and  the  valid  claims  of 
the  evolutionists,  and  those  claims  I  shall  steadily 
insist  upon.  I  shall  also  accept  as  valid  their  princi- 
pal arguments  in  favor  of  the  general  theory  of  evo- 
lution. I  shall  lay  great  stress,  for  instance,  upon 
the  doctrine  of  heredity;  and  I  shall  particularly 
insist  upon  the  entire  validity  of  their  analogical  a^r- 

1  In  justice  to  the  memory  of  Romanes  I  must  not  omit  to  men- 
tion that  his  most  pronounced  atheistic  views  were  expressed  in  a 
work  published  anonymously,  entitled  "  A  Candid  Examination  of 
Theism,"  by  "  Physicus."  In  later  years,  however,  he  modified  his 
views  as  therein  expressed,  and  his  notes  were  published  post- 
humously under  the  title  "  Thoughts  on  Religion."  Candor  compels 
the  remark,  however,  that,  from  a  purely  scientific  point  of  view,  his 
recantation  is  as  valueless  as  his  original  arguments. 


PRELIMINARY.  22 1 

_gument  from  the  ontogeny  of  the  germinal  cell  of 
man  to  the  phylogeny  of  the  primordial _germ.v  As 
this  argument  is  their  stronghold,  being  absolutely 
invulnerable  in  itself,  atheism  could  ask  no  greater 
concession  than  its  acceptance  by  theism.  It  will 
thus  be  seen  that  I  propose  to  accept,  without  quali- 
fication, all  that  is  really  fundamental  in  the  theory 
of  evolution,  both  of  fact  and  of  argument.  I  do  so 
for  two  very  good  and  sufficient  reasons;  namely, 
first,  because  they  are  right,  and  secondly,  because 
they  are  exactly  suited  to  my  purpose. 

But  when  we  come  to  the  subsidiary  hypotheses 
of  those  scientists,  vastly  different  questions  present 
themselves.  For  instance,  the  theory  of  natural 
selection  cannot  be  received  without  some  qualifi- 
cation, as  I  have  already  pointed  out.  I  have  also 
ventured  to  criticise  other  subsidiary  theories  of  Mr. 
Darwin  and  his  followers,  and  it  is  for  this-  reason 
that  I  wish  to  remind  the  critical  reader  that  the 
validity  of  the  theistic  argument  which  I  am  about 
to  make  will  not  rest  upon  the  soundness  of  my 
position  where  I  have  taken  issue  with  those  eminent 
gentlemen  on  minor  propositions.  The  point  is  that 
I  expect  to  make  my  argument  complete  as  a  refu- 
tation of  their  atheistic  conclusions  without  the  ne- 
cessity of  employing  other  facts  or  other  arguments 
than  their  own.  This  may  sound  paradoxical ;  but 
the  intelligent  reader  will  understand  my  meaning 
when  I  say  that  I  shall  simply  take  up  their  facts  and 
their  arguments  at  the  point  where  they  abruptly 
stop  and  beg  the  question  at  issue,  and  carry  said 
facts  and  arguments  to  their  legitimate  and  logical 
conclusion.  - 


222         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

I  make  these  remarks  at  this  time  simply  because 
I  am  aware  of  the  propensity  so  often  indulged  by 
a  certain  class  of  agnostic  philosophers  to  raise  new 
or  collateral  issues  when  they  fail  to  meet  the  real 
question.  I  wish  therefore  to  direct  the  attention  of 
such  philosophers  to  the  argument  based  upon  their 
own  data,  and  thus  afford  them  the  opportunity  to 
wrestle  with  that,  before  they  assume,  a  priori,  that 
I  am  wrong  because  I  differ  with  Darwin  and  his 
worshippers  on  collateral  issues. 

It  is  not  because  I  fear,  or  expect  to  escape,  or 
wish  to  avoid  criticism  for  venturing  to  entertain 
views  of  my  own  in  regard  to  those  issues,  that  I 
have  made  these  remarks.  It  is  simply  because  I 
desire  the  reader  to  distinguish  carefully  between 
those  arguments  that  are  founded  upon  my  dicta  or 
hypotheses  and  those  founded  upon  the  facts  and 
arguments  furnished  forth  by  my  opponents.  If 
that  distinction  is  carefully  borne  in  mind,  it  will  be 
found  that  the  theistic  argument,  per  se,  is  complete 
without  taking  my  own  theories  into  account. 

But  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  it  is  one  thing 
to  prove  theism,  or  the  existence  of  an  intelligent 
Great  First  Cause,  as  an  independent  proposition,  and 
quite  another  to  prove  Christian  theism,  or  the  ex- 
istence of  the  God  of  Christian  faith,  as  distinguished 
from  all  other  theistic  hypotheses.  The  first,  as  I 
shall  proceed  to  show  in  subsequent  chapters  of  this 
book,  is  easily  proven  by  the  aid  of  the  facts  of 
organic  evolution,  as  set  forth  by  the  atheistic  evo- 
lutionists themselves.  But  Christian  theism  is  not 
so  easily  proven,  inductively,  without  the  aid  of  the 
new  psychology. 


PRELIMINARY.  223 

Nor  is  the  world  at  large  very  much  interested  in 
the  first,  for  the  great  bulk  of  mankind  believes  in 
some  form  of  theism.  Even  the  agnostics  are  com- 
pelled to  admit  that  the  universe  appears  to  be 
governed  by  some  kind  of  intelligence;  but  hold 
that  it  can  bear  no  relation  to  insignificant  man,  and 
that,  whatever  it  is  otherwise,  it  is  "  utterly  inscru- 
table "  to  man. 

Christianity,  on  the  other  hand,  teaches  that  we 
should  seek  God,  if  haply  we  "  might  feel  after  him, 
and  find  him,  though  he  is  not  far  from  each  one  of 
us:  for  in  him  we  live,  and  move,  and  have  our 
being;  .  .  .  for  we  are  also  his  offspring."1 

It  follows  that  we  may  know  something  of  One 
who  is  so  near  to  every  one  of  us;  that  he  is  not 
"  utterly  inscrutable ;  "  that  if  we  are  his  offspring, 
we  may  not  only  trace  our  pedigree  back  to  him, 
but  by  an  analysis  of  the  mind  nearest  to  him,  and 
continuing  that  analysis  to  the  mind  of  man,  we  may 
know  something  of  the  attributes  of  him  from  whom 
we  are  descended. 

The  world  is  interested  in  this  form  of  theism ;  for 
it  is  of  the  last  importance  that  it  should  know 
whether  or  not  the  religion  which  bears  a  causal  rela- 
tion to  the  greatest  civilization  on  earth  is  founded 
upon  a  fundamental  truth.  And  it  looks  to  inductive 
science  for  a  solution  of  the  problem.  It  is  this 
form  of  theism  that  it  is  the  object  of  this  book  to 
examine. 

And  this  is  why  I  have  taken  the  pains  to  outline 
the  fundamental  principles  of  the  new  psychology, 
and  to  correlate  them  with  the  facts  of  organic  evo- 

1  Acts  xvii.  27  et  seq.  (St.  Paul). 


224        THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

lution.  For  if  Christian  theism  is  destined  ever  to  be 
established  by  induction,  it  is  obvious  that  it  can  be 
done  only  by  a  study  of  the  facts  and  principles  of 
these  two  sciences.  C~-**— 3— —  r^^•*^7  *^~^Cu-f-^ 

And  that  is  the  reason  why  I  have  asked  the 
reader  to  bear  the  distinction  in  mind.  Theism  is 
easily  proven  by  the  facts  of  organic  evolution  alone. 
Christian  theism  requires  the  aid  of  a  true  psychol- 
ogy. I  have  ventured  to  offer  my  own  psycholog- 
ical hypotheses,  for  the  reason  that  they  seem  to 
harmonize  all  the  facts  of  organic  and  mental  evolu- 
tion with  the  essential  principles  of  Christian  theism. 
This  the  old  psychology  could  not  do ;  and  the  new 
physiological  psychology  does  not  touch  the  question. 
Under  the  old  psychology  any  possible  conception 
of  the  attributes  of  God  based  upon  the  known 
powers  of  the  mind  of  man  could  not  escape  the 
charge  of  the  crassest  anthropomorphism.  I  shall 
attempt  to  show  that  under  the  new  psychology,  as 
outlined  in  this  book,  the  highest  possible  concep- 
tion of  the  attributes  and  powers  of  the  Deity  may 
be  gained  by  an  analysis  of  the  known  powers  of 
the  subjective  mind  of  man. 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE  GREAT  ATHEISTIC   PETITIO   PRINCIPII. 

Logical  Cobwebs  to  be  cleared  away.  —  The  Real  Question :  Is 
there  a  Personal  Deity  ?  —  Anthropomorphism  not  Chargeable 
under  New  Psychology.  —  The  Service  rendered  by  Evolutionists. 

—  Refuted    Doctrine   of    Special    Creations,   and   then   said    in 
their  Hearts,   "  There  is  no  God."  —  Mr.  Darwin's  Great  Labor 
directed  toward  Atheism.  —  Entitled  to  Credit  for  proving  Evolu- 
tion.—  Natural  Selection  as  the  Origin  of  Species  not  sustained  by 
Facts.  —  Artificial  Selection  produces  New  Morphological  Species, 
not  'Physiological.  —  Examples.  —  Huxley    takes    this    View. — 
Proof  of  Natural  Selection   lacking.  —  The  Theory  clung  to  by 
Atheism,  because  it  disguises  the  Theory  that  Physical  Organism 
antedates  Intelligence  — This  is  the  Stronghold   of  Atheism. — 
It  is  assumed  without   Proof,  which  is  begging  the  Question.  — 
Theory  of  Spontaneous  Generation  without  One  Fact  to  support 
it.  —  All  Known  Facts  against  it.  —  Haeckel  assumes  it  confessedly 
without   Facts.  —  Begs   the   Question.  —  Tyndall's   Experiments 
failed  to  produce  Organic  Life  from  Inorganic  Matter.  —  The  Cru- 
cial Point  at  the  Beginning  of  Organic  Life.  —  Natural  Selection 
the  Theory  of  Chance.  —  Lamarck's  Theory  of  Appetency.  —  Dar- 
win's  Contempt  for   Lamarck  because  his  Theory  presupposed 
Intelligence  as  the  Cause  of  Organism.  — "  It  implies  Necessary 
Progression."  —  "A   Wretched  Book."  —  Darwin's  Private   Reli- 
gious Views.  —  Lamarck's  Theory  complementary  to  Darwin's.  — 
Huxley's  Latest  Views.  —  They   indorse   Lamarck's   Theory.  — 
Haeckel  vs.   Haeckel.  —  The   Scientist   vs.    the   Atheist.  —  The 
Moneron  demonstrates  Mind  as  Antecedent  to  Physical  Organism. 

—  The   Monera  are   Structureless,   and   yet   they   are   endowed 
with  Mind  and  Life.  —  A  Wonderful  Intelligence.  —  His  Theory 
itself  a  Case  of"  Spontaneous  Generation."  —  The  Moneron  as  a 
Symbol   and   an   Example.  —  Symbolizes   the  Whole  Process   of 
Evolution.  —  An    Example    of    Creative  Power,   of    Control    of 
Mind  over  Matter,  of  the  Immanence  of  the  Soul  in  the  Body. 

—  Its  Independence  of  Organism,  of  a  Law  of  Infinite  Repro- 
duction.—  Haeckel's  Assumption  begs  the  Question  at  Issue.— 

15 


226        THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

It  is  in  Defiance  of  all  Facts  and  Recognized  Principles.  —  Atheism 
based  upon  Pure  Assumption.  —  The  Theories  of  Darwin  and 
his  Followers  are  Atheistic.  —  Their  Facts  are  Theistic. 

BEFORE  proceeding  to  the  main  argument  it  is 
desirable  to  clear  away  a  few  of  the  logical 
cobwebs  with  which  the  agnostic  philosophers  have 
so  ably  obscured  the  question  of  theism  as  it  is  af- 
fected by  the  facts  of  evolution.  In  doing  so,  there 
will  be  no  difficulty  in  showing  that  they  have  never 
treated  the  real  question  logically  or  even  fairly. 
The  real  question  is  whether  there  exists  an  intelli- 
gent, personal  Deity.  The  word  "  personal"  is  here 
employed  for  the  want  of  a  better  term.  Ifjntelli- 
gence  is  granted,  it  presupposes  a  living,  thinking, 
percipient  entity, — a  mental  organism  ;  and  an  organ- 
ized intelligence  must  be  in  some  sense  a  personality. 
Therefore  an  intelligent  God  must  be  a  personal 
God.  The  word  "  personal,"  as  applied  to  the  Deity, 
has  been  a  bete  noir  to  atheistic  philosophers  for 
many  centuries,  simply  because  they  have  chosen 
to  assume  that  it  implies  anthropomorphism.  This 
assumption  was  not  wholly  without  warrant  under 
the  old  psychology;  but  before  this  book  is  finished 
it  will  be  shown  that  personality  does  not  necessarily 
imply  anthropomorphism;  and  that  the  Christian 
doctrine  that  man  was  made  in  the  image  of  God 
may  be  scientifically  exact  without  being  inconsistent 
with  the  highest  possible  conception  of  a  Deity.  In 
short,  it  will  be  shown  that  the  crude  and  anthro- 
pomorphic conceptions  of  God  which  were  based 
upon  the  assumption  of  the  divine  pedigree  of  man 
were  only  possible  under  the  old  psychology.  This, 
however,  must  be  reserved  for  its  proper  place  in 


THE  ATHEISTIC  PETITIO  PRINCIPII.      22/ 

future  chapters.  We  will  now  proceed  to  examine 
the  logical  attitude  of  those  agnostic  philosophers 
who  imagine  that  they  have  eliminated  God  from  the 
universe,  or,  to  put  it  in  the  language  of  Romanes, 
that  there  exists  no  logical  "  necessity  for  a  God."  J 

At  the  outset  due  credit  must  be  awarded  to  the 
authors  of  the  evolutionary  hypothesis  for  the  one 
great  service  they  have  rendered  to  humanity  and  to 
the  cause  of  science  and  religion.    They  have  logically 
and  scientifically  demonstrated  that  evolution  is  God's^ 
method  of  creation.     That  is  to  say,  they  have  effec-v 
tually  disproved  the  old  doctrine  of  special  creations. 
In  doing  so,  they  have,  unintentionally  it  would  seem, 
done  more  for  the  cause  of  true  religion,  more  to 
demonstrate  the  existence  of,  and  the  logical  neces- 
sity for,  an  intelligent,  personal  Deity,  than  the  old 
doctrine  of  special,  miraculous   creations   has   ever, 
done. 

But  it  was  at  this  point  that  they  made  their  first 
great  logical  mistake.  They  imagined  that,  since 
they  had  done  away  with  the  doctrine  of  special 
creations,  they  had  also  done  away  with  the  Creator, 
or  at  least  had  obviated  all  logical  necessity  for  a 
Creator.  Upon  what  principle  of  logic  such  a  con- 
clusion was  thought  to  be  legitimate,  it  would  now 
be  useless  to  inquire.  It  is  sufficient  to  know  that 
Mr.  Darwin  and  his  followers  arrived  at  that  conclu- 
sion, although  they  attempted  in  various  ways  to 
disguise  it.  At  any  rate,  his  efforts  were  in  reality 
directed  more  specifically  and  pronouncedly  toward 
the  atheistic  argument  than  they  were  towards  the 
proofs  of  any  other  one  of  his  theses  or  hypotheses. 

1  A  Candid  Examination  of  Theism. 


228         7 HE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN". 

The  theory  of  evolution  by  itself  could  have  been 
demonstrated  to  be  true  with  half  the  labor  that  Mr. 
Darwin  bestowed  jupon  "The  Origin  of  _Species." 
The  facts  of  paleontology  alone  would  have  been 
sufficient.  In  point  of  fact,  as  Mr.  Huxley  has 
pointed  out,  "  primary  and  direct  evidence  in  favor 
of  evolution  can  be  furnished  only  by  paleontology."  * 
Moreover,  one  half  the  facts  of  biology  cited  by  Mr. 
Darwin  would  have  been  sufficient  to  make  aprima 
facie  case  in  favor  of  the  evolutionary  hypothesis ; 
and  it  could  have  been  done  without  committing  its 
author  to  a  theory  of  causation  that  he  has  been 
utterly  unable  to  sustain.  Besides,  the  moment  the 
doctrine  of  evolution  is  established,  its  opposite, 
the  doctrine  of  special  creations,  falls  of  its  own 
weight. 

We  may  therefore  concede,  for  the  sake  of  the 
argument,  that  Mr.  Darwin  is  entitled  to  the  credit 
of  making  a  prima  facie  case  in  favor  of  the  evolu- 
tionary hypothesis;  and  that,  in  so  doing,  he  has 
annihilated  the  doctrine  of  special  creations.  I  say 
we  may  concede  that  much ;  for  his  facts,  properly 
classified  and  examined,  without  reference  to  his  theory 
of  causation,  are  sufficient.  But  when  we  examine 
them  with  reference  to  his  theory,  that  is,  with  refer- 
ence to  his  doctrine  of  natural  selection  as  the  cause 
of  the  origin  of  species,  a  logical  doubt  is  thrown 
upon  his  whole  doctrine.  And  I  may  here  remark 
that  if  the  theory  of  evolution  had  depended  for  its 
validity  upon  the  labors  of  Mr.  Darwin  alone,  it  could 
never  have  obtained  general  acceptance.  It  is  to  the 
labors  of  his  contemporaries  and  his  successors  that 

1  Darwiniana,  p.  239. 


THE  ATHEISTIC  PETITIO  PRINCIPIL      22Q 

the  credit  is  due  of  placing  the  evolutionary  hypothe- 
sis beyond  the  region  of  rational  doubt. 

In  saying  this,  I  am  not  seeking  to  dim  the  lustre 
of  the  fame  of  Mr.  Darwin.  Far  from  it.  He  is 
entitled  to  all  the  credit  due  to  the  intelligent,  in- 
dustrious, and  conscientious  gatherer  of  the  facts  of 
nature.  He  was,  as  such,  one  of  the  most  illustrious 
11  hewers  of  wood  and  drawers  of  water"  for  science 
that  the  world  has  ever  seen.  It  is  upon  this  that 
the  true  fame  of  Mr.  Darwin  must  rest  in  all  the  ages. 
It  was  this  that  first  attracted  the  attention  of  scien- 
tists in  all  parts  of  the  civilized  world.  The  true 
scientist  is  an  ardent  lover  of  facts,  as  he  should  be; 
but  it  must  be  said  that  he  sometimes  "  loves,  not 
wisely,  but  too  well ;  "  for  it  unfortunately  happens 
that  even  facts  are  sometimes  prostituted  to  illegiti- 
mate uses.  That  is  to  say,  when  a  mass  of  new  and 
well-authenticated  facts  is  presented  to  the  scientist, 
especially  if  it  is  accompanied  by  an  attractive  theory 
of  causation,  he  is  not  always  careful  to  discriminate 
between  the  facts  that  sustain  the  theory  and  those 
which  do  not  It  will  not  be  difficult  to  show  that 
Mr.  Darwin's  followers  have  not  always  been  careful 
to  keep  that  distinction  clearly  in  view. 

The  facts  in  the  case  are  briefly  these :  Mr.  Darwin, 
in  the  course  of  extensive  travel  and  long  years  of 
close  observation,  had  collected  a  vast  store  of  facts 
which  bore  upon  the  subject  of  organic  evolution ; 
and  he  wisely  determined  to  embody  the  result  of 
his  labors  in  a  book  setting  forth  his  reasons  for 
believing  that  "  the  innumerable  species,  genera,  and 
families  of  organic  beings  with  which  the  world  is 
peopled  have  all  descended,  each  within  its  own 


230        THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

class  or  group,  from  common  parents,  and  have  all 
been  modified  in  the  course  of  descent."  *  No  one 
can  deny  that  his  fundamental  doctrine  of  evolution- 
ary development,  as  it  is  thus  stated  in  his  own  lan- 
guage, has  been  amply  verified  by  his  facts.  But 
when  he  comes  to  tell  us  how  this  modification 
took  place,  he  signally  fails.  In  other  words,  when 
he  tells  us  that  natural  selection  is  the  origin  of 
species,  he  signally  fails  to  prove  the  correctness  of 
the  hypothesis.  That  is  to  say,  he  has  not  given  us 
one  instance  where  a  new  species  has  been  produced 
by  either  natural  or  artificial  selection.  He  has 
shown  what  everybody  has  observed  for  himself, 
namely,  that  artificial  selection  —  that  is,  breeding  — 
has  the  power  to  change  vastly  the  structure,  or 
morphology,  of  animals,  and  thus  produce  what  is 
loosely  termed  "  new  species."  Thus,  the  great 
variety  of  pigeons  shows  what  intelligent  artificial 
selection  can  do  in  the  way  of  originating  "  morpho- 
logical species ;  "  although  it  is  well  settled  that  all 
the  varieties  are  really  descended  from  the  rock 
pigeon.  Again,  there  is  a  wide  difference  between 
the  "  razor-back  "  hog  of  the  Southern  States  and 
the  "preposterous  pig"  of  commerce  as  exhibited 
in  Northern  county  fairs  and  stockyards ;  and  still 
more  between  the  latter  and  the  wild  boar.  But 
they  are  all  of  the  same  physiological  species.  The 
true  test  jg f  species  is  in  the  phenomena  of  hybrjdjz a- 
tion.  Thus,  if  the  offspring  of  jwo  supposed^  species 
are  infertile  with  each  other,  or  with  the  original 
species  on  either  side,  the  evidence  is  complete  that 
the  two  parents  belong  to  different  physiological 

1  Origin  of  Species,  ist  ed.,  p.  457. 


THE  ATHEISTIC  PETITIO  PRINCIPII.      231 

species.  The  horse  and  the  ass,  for  instance,  when 
bred  together  produce  the  hybrid  mule;  and  the 
latter  is  well  known  to  be  infertile  with  other  mules 
or  with  either  of  the  parent  species.  On  the  other 
hand,  dogs,  howsoever  wide  may  be  their  morpholo- 
gical differences,  as  between  the  greyhound  and  the 
dachshund,  for  instance,  are  perfectly  fertile  with 
each  other,  and  their  offspring  are  fertile  with  each 
other  and  all  other  varieties  or  races  of  dogs.  The 
same  may  be  said  of  hogs,  pigeons,  and  many 
other  species  with  widely  varying  morphological 
characteristics. 

To  show  that  I  am  not  alone  in  my  opinion  as  to 
Mr.  Darwin's  failure  to  establish  his  doctrine  that 
natural  selection  is  the  originator  of  all  species,  I 
quote  the  words  of  his  best  friend  and  most  ardent 
admirer  and  sympathizer,  the  late  Thomas  H.  Huxley: 

"  After  much  consideration,  and  with  assuredly  no  bias 
against  Mr.  Darwin's  views,  it  is  our  clear  conviction  that, 
as  the  evidence  stands,  it  is  not  absolutely  proven  that  a 
group  of  animals,  having  all  the  characters  exhibited  by 
species  in  nature,  has  ever  been  originated  by  selection, 
whether  artificial  or  natural.  Groups  having  the  morpho- 
logical character  of  species  —  distinct  and  permanent  races, 
in  fact  —  have  been  so  produced  over  and  over  again  ;  but 
there  is  no  positive  evidence,  at  present,  that  any  group  of 
animals  has,  by  variation  and  selective  breeding,  given  rise 
to  another  group  which  was,  even  in  the  least  degree,  in- 
fertile with  the  first.  Mr.  Darwin  is  perfectly  aware  of 
this  weak  point,  and  brings  forward  a  multitude  of  ingeni- 
ous and  important  arguments  to  diminish  the  force  of  the 
objection.  We  admit  the  value  of  these  arguments  to 
their  fullest  extent;  nay,  we  will  go  so  far  as  to  express 


232         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

our  belief  that  experiments  conducted  by  a  skilful  physiolo- 
gist would  very  probably  obtain  the  desired  production  of 
mutually  more  or  less  infertile  breeds  from  a  common 
stock  in  a  comparatively  few  years ;  but  still,  as  the  case 
stands  at  present,  this  '  little  rift  within  the  lute  '  is  not  to 
be  disguised  or  overlooked."  1 

Now,  it  so  happens  that  this  "  little  rift  within  the 
lute  "  is  large  enough  to  destroy  utterly  the  concord 
of  sweet  sounds  which  is  popularly  supposed  to 
emanate  from  Mr.  Darwin's  instrument.  In  other 
words,  the  above  quotation  is  the  candid  though 
evidently  reluctant  admission  of  an  honest  man  that 
Mr.  Darwin,  with  all  his  vast  array  of  facts,  has 
utterly  failed  to  find  one  that  proves  his  hypothesis, 
"  even  in  the  least  degree."  That  is  to  say,  the 
theory  that  all  those  physiological  changes  and  dif- 
ferentiations that  constitute  species  in  animals,  the 
theory  that  all  structural  changes  in  animal  life  which 
make  up  the  sum-total  of  evolutionary  development, 
the  theory  that  was  supposed  to  eliminate  God  from 
the  universe  and  relegate  all  the  works  of  nature 
to  the  domain  of  chance,  is  found  to  be  without 
one  solitary  fact  to  sustain  it. 

It  does  not  in  the  least  degree  militate  against 
this  one  fact  for  Mr.  Huxley  to  say  that  Mr.  Darwin's 
arguments  are  "ingenious  and  important"  when  he 
tries  to  diminish  its  force.  Nor  does  it  strengthen 
the  weak  point  when  Mr.  Huxley  admits  the 
value  of  the  ingenious  arguments  aforesaid.  Nor 
does  it  aid  Mr.  Darwin  to  supply  the  demand  for 
facts  when  Mr.  Huxley  goes  so  far  as  to  guess  that 
some  future  "  skilful  physiologist "  might  be  able  to 
1  Darwiniana,  pp.  74,  75. 


THE  ATHEISTIC  PETITIO  PRINCIPIL      233 

supply  the  required  fact  for  Mr.  Darwin  if  he  would 
only  try  hard  enough.  The  fact  remains  that  Mr. 
Darwin's  theory  that  natural  selection  accounts  for 
the  origin  of  species  has  not  one  fact  to  sustain  it. 

Now,  I  hasten  to  repeat  what  I  said  in  Part  I.  of 
this  book;  namely,  that  I  have  no  quarrel  with  the 
theory  of  natural  selection,  or  survival  of  the 
fittest.  But  it  is  a  subsidiary  factor  in  the  grand 
scheme  of  evolutionary  development,  and  not  the 

scheme  itself.     Witlf^i  its  "sphere  of  influence"  it  is 

r 

supreme,  and  no  theory  of  evolution  would  be  com- 
plete without  it.  But  to  say  that  it  is  the  cause  of 
organic  evolution  could  only  be  exactly  paralleled  in 
absurdity  by  supposing  the  revolution  of  the  earth  on 
its  own  axis  to  be  the  cause  of  all  planetary  motion. 
Indeed,  we  might  exactly  parallel  Mr.  Darwin's  case 
by  supposing  him  to  be  a  student  of  astronomy 
instead  of  a  naturalist.  We  might  suppose  that  he 
was  an  indefatigable  gatherer  of  facts,  and  that  after 
years  of  laborious  research  he  had  accumulated 
enough  ammunition  to  explode  the  theory  that  the 
earth  is  flat  and  that  the  sun  revolves  around  it  once 
in  twenty-four  hours.  We  might  then  confidently 
expect  him  to  write  a  book  clsarly  demonstrating 
that  the  earth  is  round  instead  of  flat,  and  that  it 
revolves  on  its  own  axis,  from  west  to  east,  once  in 
twenty-four  hours,  etc.  It  is  easy  to  imagine  that 
Mr.  Darwin  would  at  once  be  hailed  as  a  great  scien- 
tist, and  justly  so,  because  his  great  array  of  facts 
would  be  demonstrative  of  his  thesis.  But  suppose 
he  labelled  his  book  "  The  Origin  of  Planetary  Mo- 
tion," and  claimed  in  it  that  the  revolution  of  the  earth 
caused  all  the  other  planets  to  revolve  and  kept  them 


234        THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

in  their  orbits.  Would  scientists  accept  that  hypoth- 
esis in  the  absence  of  a  single  fact  to  prove  it, 
simply  because  he  had  proven  some  other  proposi- 
tion by  a  great  array  of  facts?  Well,  that  depends. 
They  most  likely  would  if  it  was  understood  that  the 
unproven  proposition  would,  if  true,  eliminate  God 
from  the  universe.  In  that  case  Mr.  Huxley  might 
be  depended  upon  to  rise  to  the  occasion  and  remark 
that  "it  is  true  that  Mr.  Darwin  has  not  cited  a  single 
fact  going  to  show  that  the  revolution  of  the  earth  is 
the  cause  of  all  planetary  motion ;  but  he  has  proven 
over  and  over  again  that  the  earth  revolves;  he 
argues  ingeniously,  and  I  am  prepared  to  believe 
that  somebody  else  will  some  day  work  up  a  fact  that 
will  help  Mr.  Darwin  out.  In  the  mean  time  it  is  the 
best  hypothesis  we  have  for  proving  that  there  is  no 
logical  necessity  for  a  Deity,  and  we  had  better  stick 
to  it  and  wait  for  something  to  turn  up." 

I  submit  that  the  logic  of  the  two  cases  runs  on 
parallel  lines.  It  may  be  objected  that  I  have  sup- 
posed an  absurdity  as  my  unproven  proposition.  My 
reply  is  that  it  is  no  more  absurd  to  suppose  that  the 
revolution  of  the  earth  is  the  cause  of  all  astronomical 
phenomena  than  it  is  to  suppose  that  a  series  of  acci- 
dents is  the  cause  of  all  evolutionary  development  of 
animal  life  on  this  planet. 

This,  then,  is  the  logic  of  the  situation  as  it  is 
shown  upon  the  surface.  Viewed  from  that  stand- 
point alone,  it  is  difficult  to  imagine  why  such 
logicians  as  Huxley  should  cling  with  such  tenacity 
to  a  hypothesis  that  admittedly  has  not  one  fact  to 
sustain  it.  But  when  the  surface  is  penetrated,  the 
mystery  is  easily  solved;  for  it  is  then  found  that 


THE  ATHEISTIC  PETITIO  PRINCIPII.  .235 

the  theory  that  natural  selection  accounts  for  the  origin 
of  species  thinly  disguises  a  fundamental  proposition 
that  is  vital  to  atheism.  That  proposition  is  that 
physical  organism  is  antecedent  to  intelligence.  The 
converse  of  that  proposition  is  that  intelligence  is 
antecedent  to  physical  organism.  The  latter  is  the 
theistic  proposition ;  the  former  is  the  stronghold  of 
atheism. 

A  few  words  will  make  my  meaning  clear.  I  am 
speaking,  of  course,  £f  atheism  versus  theism  solely 
with  reference  to  the  issue  as  affected,  pro  and  con, 
by  the  facts  of  organic  evolution.  Viewed  from  that 
standpoint,  the  fundamental  issue  resolves  itself  into 
this  question:  — 

Does  mind  antedate  physical  organism? 

This  is  the  fundamental  issue  in  a  nutshell.  And 
it  will  readily  be  seen  that  to  establish  the  affirmative 
is  to  invest  every  step  in  the  progressive  develop- 
ment of  organic  life  with  a  profound  theistic  signifi- 
cance ;  for  it  leads  us  at  once  back  to  the  very 
beginning  of  organic  life  on  this  planet.  It  leads,  in 
other  words,  to  the  very  heart  of  the  great  question  ; 
for,  if  the  affirmative  is  true,  mind  antedated  the 
lowest  unicellular  organism  and  endowed  it  with  life 
and  intelligence.  If  that  is  true,  it  necessarily  in- 
volves the  theistic  interpretation  of  the  origin  of 
mind  and  life.  If  the  negative  is  true,  physical 
organism  necessarily  originated  mind  and  endowed  it 
with  its  wonderful  powers.  How?  By  an  accidental 
juxtaposition  and  subsequent  union  of  certain  chemi- 
cal substances  protoplasm  was  formed,  and  pro- 
toplasm originated  mind.  This,  in  plain  terms,  is 
the  atheistic  hypothesis  of  the  origin  of  life  and 


236        THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN, 

mind.  "  Science  "  seeks  to  soften  the  crude  realism 
of  the  naked  truth,  as  thus  expressed,  by  the  use  of 
words  of  learned  length  and  thundering  sound  ;  and 
hence  the  terms  "  abiogenesis " 1  (Huxley)  and 
"  archebiosis " 2  (Bastian),  both  of  which  mean 
spontaneous  generation,  and  have  been  coined  for 
the  purpose  of  giving  a  scientific  air  to  the  crude 
doctrine  that  the  beginning  of  life  on  this  planet  was 
due  to  "  accident  "  or  "chance." 

At  this  point  I  pause  to  remark  upon  the  logical 
attitude  involved  in  this  particular  assumption,  — 
that  life  and  mind  originated  by  spontaneous  genera- 
tion. That  assumption  is  what  is  known  in  logic  as 
petitio  principii ;  and  it  is  one  of  the  most  flagrant 
examples  on  record  of  that  most  abominable  of  all 
logical  offences  of  which  a  logician  can  be  guilty. 
Petitio  principii,  in  plain  English,  is  "  begging  the 
question."  To  beg  the  question  is  to  take  for 
granted  the  matter  in  dispute,  —  to  assume  without 
warrant  something  that  involves  the  point  under 
discussion. 

Now,  the  matter  in  dispute  between  the  atheistic 
evolutionist  and  the  theistic  evolutionist  is  just  this 
question  of  spontaneous  generation.  Is  that  the  way 
life  originated  on  this  planet?  Or  was  there  an  antece- 
dent mind  from  which  the  primordial  germ  inherited 
its  intuitive,  or  instinctive,  knowledge  of  the  laws  of 
its  being?  That  is  the  vital  question  ;  and  upon  the 
decision  of  that  question  largely  depends  the  strength 
of  the  argument  for  or  against  theism  so  far  as  it  is 
affected  by  the  facts  of  organic  evolution. 

1  Discourses,  Biological  and  Geological,  Appletons'  Am.  ed.,  p.  229. 

2  The  Beginnings  of  Life. 


THE  ATHEISTIC  PETITIO  PRINCIPII.      237 

Now,  the  argument  for  spontaneous  generation  is 
simply  nil.  It  is  pure,  gratuitous  assumption,  with- 
out a  single  fact  to  sustain  it  that  is  not  a  stronger 
argument  against  it  than  for  it.  Thus,  Haeckel,1  in 
speaking  of  that  species  of  moneron  discovered  by 
Huxley  in  1868,  called  the  Bathybius,  has  this  to 
say:  — 

"  The  oldest  monera  originated  in  the  sea  by  spontaneous 
generation.  This  assumption  is  required  by  the  demand  of 
the  human  understanding  for  causality." 

The  italics  are  mine.  They  were  unnecessary  for 
the  purpose  of  merely  drawing  the  attention  of  the 
reader  to  the  logical  fact  that  spontaneous  generation 
is  pure  assumption,  without  one  solitary  fact  to  sus- 
tain it;  for  that  may  be  taken  pro  confesso.  Neither 
is  it  necessary  to  emphasize  the  fact  that  such  an 
"assumption"  is  "required"  by  the  exigencies  of 
the  atheistic  argument;  for  that  is  self-evident, 
since  there  is,  confessedly,  nothing  but  assumption 
suited  to  the  atheistic  purpose.  But  I  wish  to  draw 
particular  attention  to  the  monumental  character  of 
the  assumption  that  the  logical  dilemma  of  atheism 
and  "  the  demand  of  the  human  understanding  for 
causality "  are  synonymous  expressions  or  logical 
equivalents.  I  submit  that  the  demand  of  the 
human  understanding  for  causality  is  not  adequately 
supplied  by  assumptions  without  evidence ;  and  I 
protest  against  measuring  human  understanding  by 
atheistic  standards. 

Now,  I  am  not  exaggerating  in  the  least  when  I 
say  that  the  strongest  evidence  of  the  correctness  of 

1   The  Evolution  of  Man,  p.  31. 


238         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

the  theory  of  spontaneous  generation  is  given  by 
Professor  Haeckel  in  the  following  sentence :  "  The 
doctrine  of  spontaneous  generation  cannot  be  ex- 
perimentally refuted." 1  Neither  can  the  doctrine 
that  the  moon  is  made  of  green  cheese  be  experi- 
mentally refuted.  Yet  no  one  but  an  atheist,  in 
desperate  pursuit  of  a  suitable  hypothesis,  would 
assume  that  the  inability  to  prove  the  negative  of 
a  proposition  constitutes  valid  evidence  that  the 
proposition  is  true. 

Logically,  the  inability  to  prove  a  negative  possesses 
no  evidential  value  whatever  in  the  absence  of  any 
affirmative  proof  of  a  given  proposition.  The  absence 
of  negative  proof,  however,  possesses  great  signifi- 
cance when  facts  exist  which  are  confirmatory  of  the 
hypothesis.  In  this  case  there  are  confessedly  no 
facts  to  prove  the  affirmative.  These  are  the  words 
of  the  learned  professor  aforesaid  :  — 

"  Neither  can  the  theory  of  spontaneous  generation  be 
experimentally  proved  unless  great  difficulties  are  overcome"  * 
(The  italics  are  mine.) 

Again  we  are  reminded  of  Professor  Huxley.  Like 
him,  Professor  Haeckel  finds  no  existing  proof  of  his 
hypothesis,  but  thinks  that  maybe,  sometime,  some- 
body will  find  a  fact,  or  manufacture  one,  that  will 
help  him  out,  provided  he  is  able  to  overcome  great 
difficulties.  In  the  mean  time  he  speaks  very  con- 
temptuously of  those  who  have  tried  to  produce 
spontaneous  generation  "  by  means  of  the  crudest 
experiments." 3  Doubtless  the  learned  professor 
refers  to  Huxley's  great  discourse  on  "  Biogenesis 

1  Op.  cit.  p.  32.  2  Op.  cit.  p.  32.  8  Op.  cit.  p.  32. 


THE  ATHEISTIC  PETITIO  PRINCIPH.      239 

and  Abiogenesis,"  1  in  which  he  exposes  the  fallacies 
of  all  previous  writers  who  have  adopted  the  hypoth- 
esis of  spontaneous  generation.  It  may  be,  however, 
that  the  "  crude  experiments  "  he  refers  to  are  Pro- 
fessor Tyndall's 2  world-renowned  series  of  experi- 
ments which  were  conducted  with  a  view  to  the 
settlement  of  the  vexed  question.  No  one  will  accuse 
the  learned  author  of  "  The  Prayer  Gauge  "  of  enter- 
taining any  violent  prejudices,  on  religious  grounds, 
against  the  theory  of  spontaneous  generation.  Nev- 
ertheless he  spent  years  in  exposing  the  fallacies 
of  those  who  imagined  that  their  crude  experiments 
had  forever  settled  the  question  affirmatively.  The 
history  of  experimental  scientific  investigation  does 
not  record  a  series  of  more  carefully  conducted  exper- 
iments than  that  by  which  Professor  Tyndall  demon- 
strated, as  far  as  a  negative  can  be  proven,  that  life 
cannot  be  generated  from  inorganic  compounds, 
spontaneously  or  otherwise. 

I  cannot  close  the  discussion  of  this  branch  of 
the  subject  without  expressing  my  appreciation  of 
Professor  Haeckel's  candor  in  frankly  admitting  the 
weakness  of  his  argument  at  the  crucial  point.  He 
admits  that  the  "assumption  "  of  spontaneous  gener- 
ation is  "required  "-by  the  necessities  of  his  argu- 
ment. I  agree  with  him.  There  is  nothing  left  for 
atheism  but  such  an  assumption  at  the  point  where 
organic  life  commenced  on  this  earth;  for  that  is 
the  crucial  point  in  the  argument  for  and  against 
theism  so  far  as  the  question  is  affected  by  the  facts 

1  Op.  cit.  p.  229. 

*  See  Tyndall's  "  Fragments  of  Science,"  vol.  ii.,  art.  "  Sponta- 
neous Generation." 


240        THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

of  organic  evolution.  Life  and  mind,  with  all  their 
implications  and  potentialities,  were  spontaneously 
generated  from  a  fortuitous  admixture  of  "inorganic 
carbon  compounds,"1  or  they  were  inherited  from 
an  antecedent  life  and  mind.  One  or  the  other  of 
these  propositions  is  true;  for  there  is  no  middle 
ground.  Professor  Haeckel  finds  that  the  exigen- 
cies of  the  logical  situation  require  him  to  assume 
that  the  first  is  true.  But  he  does  so,  not  only 
without  one  fact  to  sustain  the  assumption,  but  with 
all  the  facts  of  experimental  science  arrayed  against 
it.  As  to  the  second  of  these  alternative  proposi- 
tions, I  shall  attempt  to  show  in  future  chapters  that 
all  the  salient  facts  of  evolution  conspire  to  demon- 
strate its  truth.  In  the  mean  time,  as  stated  in  the 
commencement  of  this  chapter,  my  object  is  to  show 
the  logical  attitude  of  atheism ;  and  it  is  thought 
that  it  may  now  be  safely  assumed  that  Professor 
Haeckel  has  been  convicted  of  the  "  direct "  petitio 
prindpii. 

Attention  will  now  be  directed  once  more  to  Mr. 
Darwin  and  his  immediate  coadjutors  with  the  view 
of  showing  that  they  are  guilty  of  the  "  indirect " 
fctitio.  That  is  to  say,  Mr.  Darwin  attempts  by 
indirection  to  reach  the  same  point  that  Professor 
Haeckel  assumed  directly  as  his  major  premise, 
namely,  spontaneous  generation. 

It  has  already  been  shown  that  the  logical  impli- 
cation of  the  doctrine  that  natural  selection  origi- 
nates species  is  that  physical  organism  antedates 
intelligence,  that  is,  the  intelligence  that  makes  the 
selection.  The  very  term  "selection"  indicates 

1  Op.  cit.  p.  31. 


THE  ATHEISTIC  PETITIO  PRINCIPII.      241 

that  unmistakably.  Selection  presupposes  some- 
thing to  select,  and  an  intelligence  capable  of  mak- 
ing a  discriminating  choice.  This  applies,  however, 
to  artificial  selection  more  particularly,  for  in  that 
the  intelligence  of  man  makes  the  choice.  But*  in 
natural  selection,  survival  of  the  fittest  is  sup- 
posed to  take  the  place  of  intelligence.  But  in  that 
case  there  is  also  presupposed  an  antecedent  organ- 
ism capable  of  surviving;  that  is,  endowed  with 
superior  strength  or  sagacity,  or  something  that 
enables  it  to  cope  successfully  with  its  environment 
and  survive  less  favored  organisms.  All  this  is 
reasonable  and  logical  as  far  as  it  goes,  and  it 
accounts  for  a  great  many  things.  But  as  I  have 
already  shown,  by  the  aid  of  Mr.  Huxley  and  others, 
it  does  not  account  for  the  origin  of  species.  It 
does  not  account  for  the  antecedent  organism  that  is 
superior  in  strength,  sagacity,  etc.,  and  conse- 
quently capable  of  surviving  rival  organisms.  And 
that  is  the  crucial  question.  Mr.  Darwin  answers 
this  in  effect  by  the  one  word  "accident,"  —  other- 
wise chance.  Disguise  it  as  you  will,  the  Dar- 
winian doctrine  is  the  doctrine  of  chance;  for  he 
offers  no  other  explanation,  and  by  his  contemptu- 
ous rejection  of  Lamarck's  theory  of  appetency,  he 
rejects  the  only  possible  alternative  hypothesis.  In 
other  words,  as  I  have  already  pointed  out,  he  rejects 
the  only  possible  theory  that  implies  a  constant, 
inherent  force,  resident  in  each  organism,  that 
makes  for  progressive  development. 

The  question  is,  Why  do  Darwin  and  his  atheistic 
followers  reject  that  doctrine?  Simply  because  it 
presupposes  that  mind  antedates  physical  organism, 

16 


242         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

and  that  it  is,  in  fact,  the  primary  cause  of  organic 
changes,  and,  consequently,  of  all  evolutionary 
development.  Darwin  was  shrewd  enough  to  foresee 
that  Lamarck's  theory,  carried  to  its  legitimate  con- 
clusion, that  is,  carried  back  to  the  primordial 
germ,  would  imply  a  mind  antecedent  to  the  first 
unicellular  organism;  a  mind  capable  of  endowing 
protoplasm  with  life  and  intelligence;  a  mind 
capable  of  implanting  in  the  primordial  germ  the 
potentialities  of  manhood  ;  a  mind  capable  of  endow- 
ing the  lowest  unicellular  organism  with  such 
faculties,  powers,  and  limitations  that  progressive 
development  was  a  necessity  of  its  being;  in  short,  a 
mind  capable  of  originating  the  principle  of  organic 
evolution,  and  establishing  it  as  a  lazv  inherent  in 
the  very  nature  of  every  sentient  creature.  In  other 
words,  he  saw  that  Lamarck's  theory,  carried  to  its 
legitimate  conclusion,  inevitably  led  to  a  logical 
demonstration  of  the  theistic  hypothesis. 

Do  I  overestimate  Mr.  Darwin's  logical  acumen 
in  giving  him  credit  for  foreseeing  the- ultimate  out- 
come of  the  theory  of  appetency  ?  Or,  on  the  other 
hand,  do  I  do  Mr.  Darwin  injustice  in  supposing 
him  to  be  moved  by  a  desire  to  avoid  the  logical 
conclusion  that  appetency  leads  to  theism  ?  The 
most  attentive  reader  of  Mr.  Darwin's  works  proper 
will  probably  fail  to  find  any  evidence  whatever  that 
he  was  so  moved,  except  in  the  general  trend  of  the 
Darwinian  hypothesis.  Mr.  Darwin  was  too  shrewd 
a  controversialist  thus  to  expose  the  weakness  of  his 
cause  or  the  real  animus  of  his  works.  Nevertheless, 
there  exists  indubitable  evidence  that  my  estimate 
of  Mr.  Darwin  is  neither  exaggerated  nor  at  fault. 


THE  ATHEISTIC  PETITIO  PRINCIPII.      243 

It  has  often  been  remarked  that  more  can  be 
learned  of  the  real  man  by  the  perusal  of  one  of  his 
private  letters  to  an  intimate  friend,  than  can  be 
divined  by  reading  a  dozen  volumes  of  his  published 
works.  This  is  eminently  true  of  Mr.  Darwin. 
Accordingly  we  find  in  one  of  his  letters  to  his 
bosom  friend,  Sir  Charles  Lyell,  his  deliberate 
opinion  of  Lamarck's  theory,  and  his  real  reason  for 
the  contempt  with  which  he  regarded  it.  In  this 
letter  he  was  taking  Sir  Charles  to  task  for  refer- 
ring to  Mr.  Darwin's  views  as  a  modification  of 
Lamarck's.  He  says :  — 

"  If  this  is  your  deliberate  opinion,  there  is  nothing  to  be 
said,  but  it  does  not  seem  so  to  me.  Plato,  Buffon,  my 
grandfather  before  Lamarck,  and  others  propounded  the 
obvious  views  that  if  species  were  not  created  separately 
they  must  have  descended  from  other  species,  and  I  can 
see  nothing  else  in  common  between  the  '  Origin '  and 
Lamarck.  I  believe  this  way  of  putting  the  case  is  very 
injurious  to  its  acceptance,  as  it  implies  necessary  progres- 
sion, and  closely  connects  Wallace's  and  my  views  with 
what  I  consider,  after  two  deliberate  readings,  as  a  wretched 
book,  and  one  from  which  (I  well  remember  my  surprise) 
I  gained  nothing.1 

In  a  later  letter  to  Sir  Charles  he  speaks  of 
Lamarck's  book  as  follows :  — 

"  As  for  Lamarck,  as  you  have  such  a  man  as  Grove  with 
you,  you  are  triumphant ;  not  that  I  can  alter  my  opinion 
that  to  me  it  was  an  absolutely  useless  book"  *  (The  italics 
are  mine.) 

1  Life  and  Letters  of  Charles  Darwin,  vol.  ii.  pp.  198, 199. 
'*•  Ibid.  p.  201. 


244        THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

"  A  wretched  book  "  —  "  an  absolutely  useless 
book"  —  is  the  verdict  of  Mr.  Darwin  in  re  La- 
marck's work  on  organic  evolution.  Why?  Simply 
because  the  latter's  theory  "  implies  necessary  pro- 
gression," is  Mr.  Darwin's  answer. 

If  Mr.  Darwin  had  written  a  volume  on  the  subject 
of  his  religious  views  as  expressed  or  implied  in  his 
doctrine  of  the  origin  of  species,  he  could  not  have 
more  plainly  and  definitely  said :  "  I  object  to  La- 
marck's theory  of  evolution  because  it  implies  a  con- 
stant force,  inherent  in  every  sentient  creature  and 
arising  from  the  wants  and  necessities  of  its  exist- 
ence, that  compels  progressive  development.  I  ob- 
ject to  it  because  it  implies  that  mind  is  antecedent 
to  organism  and  is  endowed  with  a  creative  energy 
equal  to  the  production  of  organic  structural  changes. 
I  object  to  it  because,  carried  to  its  legitimate  con- 
clusion, it  implies  that  mind  antedated  the  lowest 
animal  organism  and  impelled  its  structural  devel- 
opment. I  object  to  it  because  it  implies  that  evo- 
lutionary development  proceeds  in  obedience  to  a 
law,  and  not  to  a  series  of  accidents,  and  that  it  is, 
therefore,  a  '  necessary  progression.'  I  object  to  it 
because  '  necessary  progression '  implies  a  definite 
end  in  view  —  a  goal  to  be  reached  —  which,  in  turn, 
implies  design." 

Does  any  one  doubt  that  all  this  is  implied  in  his 
remarks  contrasting  Lamarck's  doctrine  with  the 
theory  of  natural  selection?  In  other  words,  does 
any  one  imagine  that  Darwin  did  not  regard  design 
as  implied  in  "  necessary  progression,"  as  the  very 
antithesis  of  his  doctrine  of  natural  selection?  If  so, 
we  will  again  invite  attention  to  some  of  Mr.  Darwin's 


THE  ATHEISTIC  PETITIO  PRINCIPIL      245 

private  sentiments,  —  to  an  extract  from  his  autobiog- 
raphy, written,  not  for  publication,  but  for  the  eyes 
of  his  immediate  family. 

Speaking  of  his  early  religious  beliefs  as  contrasted 
with  those  he  afterwards  entertained,  he  says  :  — 

"  Although  I  did  not  think  much  about  the  existence  of  a 
personal  God  until  a  considerably  later  period  of  my  life,  I 
will  here  give  the  vague  conclusions  to  which  I  have  been 
driven.  The  old  argument  from  design  in  nature,  as  given 
by  Paley,  which  formerly  seemed  to  me  so  conclusive,/a/'/f, 
now  that  the  law  of  natural  selection  has  been  discovered."  * 
(The  italics  are  mine.) 

I  submit  that  words  could  not  more  plainly  express 
his  belief  that  the  doctrine  of  natural  selection  has 
forever  refuted  the  teleological  argument,  —  the  doc- 
trine of  design,  as  evidenced  in  the  works  of  nature. 
This,  in  connection  with  his  contemptuous  rejection 
of  Lamarck's  theory  on  the  ground  that  it  "  implies 
necessary  progression,"  furnishes  indubitable  proof 
that  he  regarded  his  own  theory  as  the  very  antith- 
esis of  that  of  Lamarck.  That  is  to  say,  Lamarck's 
theory  is  that  the  mind  within  the  organism  is  capable 
of  changing  organic  structure  in  response  to  neces- 
sity; hence  a  mind  antecedent  to  organism  from  the 
beginning;  hence  a  law,  and  hence  "  necessary  pro- 
gression" in  accordance  with  an  immutable  law  of 
progressive  development  implanted  in  the  primordial 
germ. 

These  are  the  necessary  logical  implications  of 
Lamarck's  theory, 2  and  Mr.  Darwin  was  not  slow  to 

1  Life  and  Letters,  vol.  i.  p.  278. 

3  It  must  here  be  noted  that  such  was  not  Lamarck's  opinion  ;  for 
he  too   was  an  atheist,  and  fondly   imagined  that  his  theory  elimi- 


246        THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

recognize  the  fact.  Hence  his  indignant  protest 
against  classing  any  theory  that  implies  necessary 
progression  with  his  doctrine  of  chance.  In  his  es- 
timation, and  surely  no  one  has  any  right  to  gainsay 
it,  the  two  hypotheses  are  antithetical,  antipodal. 
On  no  other  grounds  than  those  I  have  stated  could 
they  be  so  considered.  One  leads  inevitably  to 
theism ;  the  other  is  crass  atheism.1 

If  Mr.  Darwin  had  not  been  moved  to  this  antago- 
nism on  the  grounds  thus  indicated,  he  surely  could 
not  have  failed  to  see  what  Huxley  evidently  saw  so 
clearly,  that  the  two  theories  are  complementary  of 
each  other;  that,  in  fact,  each  is  incomplete  with- 
out the  other.  It  is  not  even  pretended  that  nat- 
ural selection  explains  the  cause  of  those  variations 
of  physical  structure  from  which  the  selection  is 
made.  Beyond  the  theory  of  chance  all  is  in  ob- 
scurity so  far  as  Mr.  Darwin  informs  us.  "  Species," 
he  says,  "  originated  by  means  of  natural  selection, 
or  through  the  preservation  of  the  favored  races 
in  the  struggle  for  life."  But  he  does  not  tell  us 
how  the  "favored  races"  came  to  be  favored  with 
the  structural  advantages  which  enable  them  to  com- 
pete successfully  in  the  struggle  for  life.  "Chance" 
is  the  only  explanation  offered  by  Mr.  Darwin,  and, 
as  we  have  already  seen,  he  emphasizes  it  by  his 

nated  God  from  the  universe.  Hence  it  was  that,  with  that  singular 
want  of  logical  acumen  that  seems  to  be  congenite  with  certain  types 
of  continental  philosophers  and  scientists,  he  referred  the  origin  of 
life  and  mind  to  spontaneous  generation. 

1  Disguise  the  latter  term  as  you  will,  or  soften  it  into  "agnosti- 
cism," it  still  remains  that  an  agnostic  is  simply  an  atheist  with- 
out the  courage  of  his  convictions;  and  Mr.  Darwin's  so-called  reli- 
gious views,  as  shown  in  his  letters  and  autobiography,  reveal  the 
fact  that  he  was  a  living  illustration  of  this  definition. 


THE  ATHEISTIC  PETITIO  PRINCIPIL      247 

irascible  hostility  to  any  theory  which  implies  a  law 
governing  the  subject-matter.  If,  therefore,  chance 
is  not  his  theory  of  causation,  as  Mr.  Huxley  feebly 
protests,  then  Mr.  Darwin  has  no  theory.  In  any 
event,  there  is  a  hiatus  in  his  hypothesis  that  cannot 
be  bridged  by  an  accident  or  a  series  of  accidents. 

Now,  there  has  never  been  a  theory  promulgated 
that  is  capable  of  filling  this  hiatus  by  means  of 
a  law  of  progressive  development  except  Lamarck's. 
I  have  stated  above  that  Mr.  Huxley  saw  this 
clearly.  I  do  not  find  this  admission  in  the  text 
of  his  published  works ;  but  I  do  find  it  in  his  pref- 
ace to  Appletons'  American  edition  of  "  Darwin- 
iana."  This  preface  is  dated  April  7,  1893,  eleven 
years  after  Mr.  Darwin's  death,  and  but  a  few  years 
before  his  own  demise.  It  may  therefore  be  re- 
garded as  his  final  protest  against  the  insufficiency 
of  his  friend's  theory,  and  a  parting  suggestion  to 
science  as  to  the  only  hypothesis  that  can  fill  the 
hiatus.  He  says :  — 

"As  I  have  said  in  the  seventh  essay,  the  fact  of  evolution 
is  sufficiently  evidenced  by  paleontology ;  and  I  remain 
of  the  opinion  expressed  in  the  second,  that  until  selective 
breeding  is  definitely  proved  to  give  rise  to  varieties  in- 
fertile with  one  another,  the  logical  foundation  of  natural 
selection  is  incomplete.  We  still  remain  very  much  in  the 
dark  about  the  causes  of  variation  :  the  apparent  inherit- 
ance of  acquired  characters  in  some  cases ;  and  the  struggle 
for  existence  within  the  organism,  which  probably  lies  at  the 
bottom  of  both  these  phenomena"  (The  italics  are  mine.) 

I  submit  that,  without  specifically  naming  Lamarck 
or  his  theory,  Mr.  Huxley  could  not  have  more 


248         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

pointedly  declared  his  final  opinion  to  be  that 
Darwin's  theory  of  evolutionary  development  is  in- 
complete, and  that  Lamarck's  is  the  only  possible 
complementary  hypothesis.  I  therefore  repeat,  with 
increased  emphasis,  that  neither  Lamarck's  theory 
nor  Darwin's  is  complete  without  the  other;  but  that 
together  they  constitute  a  theory  of  evolutionary 
development  that  is  complete,  coherent,  and  scien- 
tific. It  is  complete  because  it  leaves  no  hiatus  to 
be  bridged  by  accident  or  chance.  It  is  coherent 
because  the  two  factors  are  not  inconsistent  with 
each  other.  It  is  scientific  because  it  accounts  for 
all  the  facts  and  reveals  a  law  of  evolution  under 
which  progression  is  necessary. 

This  alone  would  commend  it  to  such  a  mind  as 
Huxley's,  even  though  it  does  presuppose  mind  to 
be  antecedent  to  physical  organism,  and,  indeed,  the 
primary  cause  of  it.  Unlike  Mr.  Darwin,  Mr.  Huxley 
did  not  shrink  from  the  acknowledgment  of  facts, 
howsoever  strongly  they  might  militate  against  his 
"  agnostic  "  preconceptions.  One  of  his  ablest  essays 
was  calculated  to  explode  the  fallacy  of  spontaneous 
generation,1  indispensable  as  it  is  to  the  atheistic 
argument,  as  acknowledged  by  Haeckel.  Nor  could 
he  have  failed  to  realize  the  trend  of  the  facts  of 
nature  toward  theism  when  he  finally  declared  his 
conviction  that  "  the  struggle  for  existence  within 
the  organism  "  lies  at  the  bottom  of  all  causes  of 
variation  in  species  and  the  inheritance  of  acquired 
characters.  It  was,  in  effect,  a  distinct  declaration 
that  mind  is  not  only  antecedent  to  physical  organism, 
but  that  it  is  the  efficient  cause,  the  initial  force,  which 

1  Discourses:  Biological  and  Geological  Essays,  p.  229. 


THE  ATHEISTIC  PETITIO  PRINCIPIL      249 

lies  at  the  bottom  of  all  the  phenomena  of  progressive 
development  of  animal  life  on  this  planet.  Moreover, 
he  could  not  have  failed  to  see  that  the  inevitable 
logical,  scientific  induction  is  that  mind  is  antecedent 
to,  and  the  efficient  cause  of,  the  primordial  unicellu- 
lar organism. 

And  this  is  the  conclusion  that  Darwin  so  strenu- 
ously sought  to  avoid.  This  is  the  conclusion  that 
Haeckel  evaded  by  begging  the  question,  —  by  the 
"  direct" petitio. 

And  this  brings  us  back  to  another  singular 
break  in  Professor  Haeckel's  logic,  and  one  which 
has  a  very  important  bearing  upon  this  question. 
In  his  anxiety  to  prove  spontaneous  generation,  he 
went  back  beyond  the  true  cell,  the  amoeba,  with  a 
nucleus ;  that  is,  a  physical  organism  with  organs,  in 
search  of  animal  life  "  standing  on  the  very  boundary 
between  organic  and  inorganic  natural  bodies."  1 

Surely,  if  spontaneous  generation  accounts  for  the 
origin  of  animal  life,  the  evidence  must  be  found  on 
this  boundary  line  between  the  two  realms.  Has 
Professor  Haeckel  found  that  evidence?  Here  is 
what  he  has  to  say  in  concluding  his  argument,  so 
called,  for  spontaneous  generation :  — 

"  In  conclusion,  I  repeat,  with  emphasis,  that  it  is  only 
in  the  case  of  monera  —  of  structureless  organisms  without 
organs — that  we  can  assume  the  hypothesis  of  spontaneous 
generation.  Every  differentiated  organism,  every  organism 
composed  of  organs,  can  only  have  originated  from  an  un- 
differentiated  lower  organism  by  differentiation  of  its  parts, 
and  consequently  by  phylogeny.  Hence,  even  in  the  pro- 
duction of  the  simplest  cell  we  must  not  assume  the  process 

1  The  Evolution  of  Man,  vol.  ii.  p.  50. 


2$0        THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

of  spontaneous  generation.  For  even  the  simplest  cell  con- 
sists of  at  least  two  distinct  constituent  parts  :  the  inner 
and  firmer  kernel  (nucleus),  and  the  outer  and  softer  cell- 
substance  or  protoplasm.  These  two  distinct  parts  can 
only  have  come  into  being  by  differentiation  of  the  homo- 
geneous plasson  ofamoneron  and  ofacytode.  It  is  for  this 
very  reason  that  the  natural  history  of  monera  is  of  the 
highest  interest ;  for  it  alone  can  remove  the  principal 
difficulties  which  beset  the  question  of  spontaneous. genera- 
tion. The  extant  monera  do  afford  us  organless  and 
structureless  organisms,  such  as  must  have  originated  by 
spontaneous  generation  at  the  first  beginning  of  organic 
life  upon  the  earth."  *  (The  italics  are  mine.) 

Now  let  us  inquire  what  evidence  Professor  Haeckel 
has  really  found  to  substantiate  his  hypothesis.  In 
the  first  place,  it  will  be  noted  that  he  admits  that  the 
moneron  "alone  "  can  help  him  out,  and  he  is  doubt- 
less right;  for  if  that  fails,  his  doctrine  of  sponta- 
neous generation,  with  all  of  its  atheistic  implications, 
comes  to  naught. 

The  thing  that  he  has  really  found,  upon  which 
so  much  depends,  is  an  "  organless  and  structureless 
organism."  This  might  appear  like  a  contradiction 
in  terms,  since  physical  organism  presupposes  differ- 
entiated organs  or  parts  performing  special  functions 
that  are  mutually  dependent  and  essential ;  but  he 
calls  it  an  organism,  either  for  the  want  of  a  better 
term,  or  because  it  is  endowed  with  a  mind  organism, 
and  is  therefore  capable  of  performing  functions.  Be 
that  as  it  may,  let  us  fasten  the  "  structureless  "  part 
of  the  moneron  beyond  peradventure. 

1  OP-  cit.  P.  33. 


THE  ATHEISTIC  PETITIO  PRINCIPII.      251 

"It  might  be  argued,"  says  the  learned  professor,  "that 
the  monera  are  not  really  structureless,  but  that  their  organ- 
ism is  so  minute  that,  in  consequence  of  the  inadequate 
power  of  our  magnifying  glasses,  it  is  invisible.  This  objec- 
tion is,  however,  invalid,  for  by  the  experiment  of  feeding, 
we  can  at  any  moment  prove  the  entrance  of  foreign, 
formed,  small  bodies  into  the  different  parts  of  the  body  of 
the  moneron,  and  that  these  are  irregularly  driven  about  in 
all  directions.  At  the  same  time  we  see  that  the  change- 
able network  of  threads,  formed  by  the  branching  of  the 
protoplasmic  threads  and  the  coalescence  of  the  confluent 
branches,  alter  their  configuration  every  moment ;  just  as 
has  long  been  known  to  occur  in  the  thread-nets  of  the  pro- 
toplasm in  the  interior  of  the  plant-cells.  The  monera 
are,  therefore,  really  homogeneous  and  structureless ;  each 
part  of  the  body  is  every  other  part.  Each  part  can  absorb 
and  digest  nourishment ;  each  part  is  excitable  and  sensi- 
tive ;  each  part  can  move  itself  independently ;  and,  lastly, 
each  part  is  capable  of  reproduction  and  regeneration."  * 

We  may  now  concede  that  Professor  Haeckel  has 
demonstrated  two  very  important  facts:  namely,  (i) 
the  existence  of  an  "  organless  and  structureless  or- 
ganism ;  "  and  (2)  that  this  organism  is  endowed  with 
a  mind  2  capable  of  exhibiting  the  active  phenomena 
of  life,  namely,  nutrition,  sensation,  spontaneous  move- 
ment, reproduction,  and  regeneration.  It  is  difficult, 
however,  to  imagine  upon  what  grounds  he  imagines 
that  he  has  helped  his  case.  He  has,  in  point  of  fact, 
demonstrated  the  exact  opposite  to  that  which  he 
set  out  to  prove. 

1  The  Evolution  of  Man,  vol.  ii.  pp.  47,  48. 

2  See  Binet  on  "The  Psychic  Life  of  Micro-Organisms,"  and  Ro- 
manes on  "  Mental  Evolution  in  Animals,"  quoted  in  part  i.  of  this 
book,  to  prove  mind  in  micro-organisms. 


252         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

He  has  demonstrated  tJiat  mind  is  antecedent  to  fliysi- 
cal,  structural  organism. 

He  has  shown  us  a  mind  that  is  capable  of  seiz- 
ing upon  a  mass  of  homogeneous,  structureless  mat- 
ter, and  endowing  it  with  life  and  intelligence;  a 
mind  that  is  capable  of  moving  and  moulding  at 
will  a  structureless  mass  of  protoplasm;  a  mind 
that  is  capable  of  developing  an  organism  from  an 
unorganized  mass  of  primordial  plasson ;  a  mind  in 
which  all  the  faculties  of  the  highest  manhood 
potentially  exist. 

Professor  Haeckel  would  himself  admit  all  these 
propositions;  for  they  are  the  essentials  of  the 
general  theory  of  organic  evolution.  But  he  has 
not  helped  his  theory  of  the  spontaneous  generation 
of  such  a  mind  from  inorganic  matter.  If  he  had 
shown  a  structural  organism  antecedent  to  the  mind 
that  phenomenally  manifested  itself  through  said 
organism,  he  might,  with  some  slight  adumbrations 
of  reason,  have  claimed  that  the  organism  was  spon- 
taneously generated  from  inorganic  matter,  and  that 
said  organism,  in  turn,  might  have  generated  the 
mind.  Aside  from  the  inherent  absurdity  involved 
in  the  supposition  that  a  bit  of  slime  has  the  power 
to  originate  a  man,  Professor  Haeckel  might  thus 
have  evolved  a  theory  of  spontaneous  generation  that 
would  at  least  have  been  an  improvement  upon  any 
that  atheism  has  yet  wrested  from  the  facts  of 
organic  evolution.  But  since  he  has  demonstrated 
that  mind  antedates  structural  organism,  his  theory 
itself  must  be  held  to  be  a  case  of  spontaneous 
generation. 

Professor   Haeckel's    theories,    however,    are    of 


THE  ATHEISTIC  PETITIO  PRh\CIFII.      253 

small  importance  to  the  world  when  compared  with 
the  one  stupendous  fact  that  he  has  thus  made 
known.  Its  bearing  upon  the  whole  question  of  the 
processes  of  progressive  development  of  organic  life 
is  of  transcendent  interest  and  importance.  It  is 
symbolical  of  the  whole  process.  The  development  ( 
of  the  amoeba  from  themoneron  was  a  greater . 
structural  change  tHarTwas  the  development  of  man  j 
from  his  simian  ancestry,  or  the  amphibian  from 
the  fish,  or__the  bird  from  the  crawling  reptile.  ' 
But  natural  selection,  in  the  Darwinian  sense,  can 
by  no  possible  stretch  of  the  imagination  be  pre- 
sumed to  have  entered  as  a  dominating  factor  in 
this,  the  first  step  in  organic  evolution.  "The 
struggle  for  existence  within  the  organism"  is  the 
only  possible  rational  explanation.  It  is  even  more 
absurd,  if  possible,  to  suppose  that  the  primary  in- 
stinct that  impelled  this  growth  and  development, 
the  primary  instinct  that  impelled  the  moneron  to 
the  acts  of  reproduction,  nutrition,  and  locomotion, 
had  its  origin  in  natural  selection.  And  yet  this  is 
the  Darwinian  doctrine,  according  to  Romanes,  of 
the  origin  of  primary  instincts. 

Now,  the  "struggle  for  existence  within  the 
organism,"  or,  in  more  specific  terms,  the  creative 
power  or  energy  resident  within  the  organism,  hav- 
ing thus  been  shown  to  be  the  initial  force  that 
impelled  the  progressive  development  of  the  lowest 
animal  organisms,  it  must  be  presumed,  until  the 
contrary  is  demonstrated,  that  the  same  initial 
energy  lies  at  the  bottom  of  all  progressive  changes 
of  physical  structure. 

Haeckel  was  right  when  he  went  back  to  the  very 


254        THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

beginning  of  sentient  life  in  search  of  the  one  great 
primordial  fact  from  which  a  broad,  scientific  gen- 
eralization could  be  legitimately  formulated.  He 
was  right  when  he  passed  the  amoeba  by  as  pos- 
sessing, in  itself,  no  significance  worth  considering 
except  that  which  pertains  to  it  as  being  the  earliest 
"structural  organism  with  organs  "  known  to  science. 
He  was  right  when  he  went  back  to  "the  boundary 
line  between  organic  and  inorganic  natural  bodies" 
in  search  of  a  key  to  the  great  mystery  surrounding 
the  origin  of  life.  But,  unfortunately,  he  was  also 
in  search  of  proofs  to  sustain  a  preconceived  hypothe- 
sis; and  hence  he  was  blinded  to  the  real  signifi- 
cance of  the  facts  which  he  discovered.  He  did  not 
even  recognize  the  bearing  of  the  fact  that  mind 
antedated  organism  upon  the  subsequent  steps  of 
the  process  of  organic  development;  although,  to  do 
him  entire  justice,  the  trend  of  his  argument  did  not 
require  him  to  consider  that  question.  All  that  he 
could  derive  from  that  stupendous  fact  was  the  lame 
and  impotent  conclusion  that  somehow  it  "must" 
be  that  mind  and  life  are  spontaneously  generated 
from  inorganic  matter.  Otherwise,  he  tells  us,  we 
have  "no  other  resource  but  to  believe  in  a  super- 
natural miracle"  (sic).1 

Without  stopping  to  discuss  the  subject  of  miracles, 
natural  or  supernatural,  I  desire  to  indicate,  briefly, 
some  of  the  inferences  that  seem  to  me  to  be  logi- 
cally derivable  from  what  we  have  learned,  by  the 
aid  of  Professor  Haeckel,  of  the  phenomenal  mani- 
festation of  life  and  mind  in  the  moneron.  I  have 
already  shown  that  the  fact  that  mind  in  that  animal 

l  Op.  cit.  p.  32. 


THE  ATHEISTIC  PETITIO  PRIiVCIPII.      255 

is  antecedent  to  physical  organism,  and  that  it  con-  v  ^. 
trols  and  develops  organism,   is  symbolical  >of  the     •  —  -, 
whole  subsequent  process  of  progressional  develop-  " 
ment  of  physical  organisms. 

But  that  is  not  the  most  important  inference  to  be 
drawn  from  this  phenomenon.      It  exemplifies   that 
control  of  the  mind  over  the  body  which  modern 
science  has  done  so  much  to  verify  and  systematize 
in    various   directions.     The   significant   feature   of^ 
that  control  is  that  it  does  so  in  the  entire  absence 
of  structural  organism;  thus  demonstrating  the  truth  \ 
of  the   hypothesis   that  the_  subjective   mind  —  the  | 
soul  —  is  immanent  in  the  body  aad  not  inherent  in 
it  or  in  any  oi  its  physical  organs.     In  other  words,  ^ 
it   is  -cymfcoKSal   of   the  fact  that   the  soul  is  notj 
dependent  for  its  existence  upon  physical  organism,  , 
nor  for   its   power   upon   the  existence  of  physical  ^ 
organs.  7~L^T  ^-^^j  <k_  A£*. 

Again,    it   demonstrates   the    creative    power    of 

.   j.  vta-^+tLo  ir~g<  u>  1-1      -4. 

mind,    and  Asymbolizes   the   power    from    which    it 

inherited  its  own  potentialities,  —  the  power  that 
assembles  cosmic  matter  and  creates  a  universe. 

Finally,  the  primordial  method  of  reproduction, 
as  first  revealed  in  the  monera,  namely,  by  fission  or 
segmentation*  is  demonstrative  of  the  fact  that  a 
completely  organized  mind  can  be  segregated  from 

the   parent  mind  without   destroying  04  modifying 

«"v*_^-fh  -"v^y,  J>  A,*  ^-"i^^^y 
the  powers  of  either;  thus  symboifc^Bg  the  process 

by  which  anvinfenitc  number  of  individualized  intelli- 
gences may  be  segregated  from  4£  infinite,  omni- 
present intelligence.  Thus  a  law  —  not  a  miracle  — 
a  law  of  infinite  reproduction  is  revealed,  which 
easily  accounts  for  origin  of  life  and  mind,  as  well 


256         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

as  for  all  the  subsequent  steps  in  the  process  of 
organic  and  mental  evolution,  including,  of  course, 
the  origin  of  species. 

i  The  intelligent  reader  will  understand  that  the 
above  propositions  are  provisionally  assumed.  Their 
verification  will  depend  upon  whether  they  accord 
with  all  the  known  facts  of  psychology  and  of  organic 
and  mental  evolution.  That  must  be  more  fully  set 
forth  in  subsequent  chapters.  They  are  mentioned 
here  merely  by  way  of  contrast  between  the  infer- 
ences which  atheism  and  theism  respectively  derive 
from  the  phenomena  exhibited  in  the  primordial 


I  have  now  shown  that  the  crucial  question  at 
issue  between  atheism  and  theism,  so  far  as  the  facts 
of  organic  evolution  are  in  evidence,  is  whether  or 
not  mind  antedates  physical  organism  ;  and  that  this 
involves  the  question  of  spontaneous  generation  on 
the  one  hand,  and  of  natural  selection  on  the  other. 
I  have  shown  that  Haeckel,  in  assuming  sponta- 
neous generation,  has  done  so  without  one  fact  to 
sustain  his  assumption1;  but  that,  on  the  contrary, 
all  the  facts  revealed  by  experimental  science, 
together  with  all  the  observable  phenomena  of  the 
beginning  of  organic  life,  tend  to  disprove  his 
hypothesis.  I  have  shown  that  the  question  of  spon- 
taneous generation  being  a  vital  issue  between 
atheism  and  theism,  Professor  Haeckel,  in  postulat- 
ing the  affirmative  without  warrant  of  fact,  has  been 
guilty  of  the  logical  offence  known  as  the  "direct" 
petitio  principii.  I  have  also  shown  that  Darwin,  in 
his  insistence  upon  natural  selection  as  being  the 
origin  of  species,  has  tacitly  assumed  the  negative 


THE  ATHEISTIC  PETITIO  PRINCIPII. 

of  the  proposition  that  mind  antedates  physical 
organism.  I  have  shown  that  he  has  done  so  in 
defiance  of  all  the  facts  of  experimental  science 
(artificial  selection),  and  in  direct  contravention  to 
all  the  observable  phenomena  of  the  beginning  of 
organic  life  (the  moneron). 

In  thus  illicitly  assuming  the  thing  to  be  proven, 
without  warrant  of  fact  and  in  contravention  of  all 
the  facts,  he  has  been  guilty  of  the  "  indirect " 
petitio ;  or,  as  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer  would  term  it, 
the  "disguised  "  petitio  principiL 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  the  atheistic  theories  of 
the  Darwinian  evolutionists  are  all  based  upon  pure 
assumption/  It  remains  to  prove  that  the  facts  of 
evolution  disprove  the  atheistic  theories  of  evolu- 
tionists. That  is  to  say,  the  theories  of  Danvinian 
evolutionists  are  atheistic ;  their  facts  are  theistic. 


CHAPTER   III. 

THE   MIND  OF  MAN'S  EARLIEST  EARTHLY  ANCESTOR. 

The  Doctrine  of  Heredity.  —  All  that  is  inherent  in  Man  is  what  he 
inherited  from  his  Ancestry,  Near  and  Remote.  —  The  Potentials 
of  Manhood,  therefore,  resided  in  the  Moneron.  —  Propositions 
reduced  to  Syllogistic  Form.  —  The  Two  Primordial  Instincts  as 
shown  in  the  Moneron.  —  The  Prepotent  Agency  of  Physical  De- 
velopment and  of  Human  Progress. — A  Complete  Law  of  Evo- 
lution thus  exemplified  in  the  Monera.  —  Thus  Progress  toward 
Highest  Development  follows  Lines  of  Least  Resistance.  —  Only 
Good  implanted  in  Man's  Earliest  Earthly  Ancestor.  —  What  is 
Instinct?  —  Atheistic  Theories  considered.  —  Herbert  Spencer's 
Reflex  Action.  —  Romanes  vs.  Spencer.  —  Facts  and  not  Phrases 
to  be  considered.  —  Analysis  of  the  Mental  Faculties  of  the  Mone- 
ron.—  Based  on  Haeckel's  Statements.  —  Sensation,  Movement, 
Nutrition,  Reproduction,  Regeneration,  Intelligence.  —  The  Prom- 
ise and  Potency  of  a  Human  Soul.  —  That  Intelligence  comprises 
a  Knowledge  of  the  Primary  Laws  of  Organic  Life.  —  Reflex 
Action  presupposes  Subjective  Intelligence.  —  It  is  a  Recognition 
of  Danger  coupled  with  an  Effort  to  avoid  it.  —  It  never  makes  a 
Mistake.  —  The  Simplest  Manifestation  of  Instinct  of  Self-Preser- 
vation.  —  The  Old  Psychology  at  Fault.  —  It  knew  Nothing  of  Sub- 
jective Mind.  —  All  its  Data  from  the  Objective  Mind. —  Phe- 
nomena due  to  Sensation  being  prompted  by  Intelligence,  it  fol- 
lows that  the  same  is  true  of  the  Other  Faculties.  —  Mind  of  the 
Moneron  differs  in  no  Essential  from  Subjective  Mind  of  Man, 
except  in  Degree.  —  The  same  Terms  define  its  Powers  and  Attri- 
butes. —  Nor  can  Faculties  of  the  Moneron  be  adequately  described 
except  in  Terms  that  define  Omniscience. 

/~T~NHE  fundamental  doctrine  of  all  forms  of  the 
•*•  theory  of  evolution  applied  to  biology  is  that 
all  living  creatures,  man  included,  descended  from 
a  common  ancestry.  Science  has  demonstrated  this 
to  be  true  by  tracing  the  ancestry  of  man  back 
through  numerous  gradients  to  the  very  lowest  forms 


MIND   OF  MAN'S  EARLIEST  ANCESTOR. 
f! 

of  organic  life.  A  corollary  of  this  is  that  the  facul- 
ties  of  man  constitute  the  sum  of  all  his  ancestral 
faculties  and  instincts  that  have  remained  useful  or 
advantageous  in  the  "struggle  for  life."  In  other 
words,  all  that  there  is  inherent  in  man  is  what  he 
has  inherited  from  his  ancestry,  near  and  remote. 
It  follows  that  the  potentialities  of  manhood  resided 
in  the  lowest  sentient  being,  —  in  the  moneron.  (f 

This  is,  in  brief,  the  doctrine  of  heredity  held  and 
insisted  upon  by  all  evolutionists,  from  Darwin 
down,  who  have  discarded  the  doctrine  of  special 
creations.  And  it  was  because  science  has  been 
able  practically  to  demonstrate  this  doctrine  to  be 
true,  that  the  dogma  of  special  creations  of  genera 
and  species  has  been  yielded  even  by  those  who  do 
not  admit  that  God  has  thereby  been  eliminated 
from  the  universe.  If  science  has  demonstrated 
anything  more  clearly  than  another  within  the  pur- 
view of  biological  research,  it  is  that  the  faculties 
of  man  were  inherited  from  his  lower  ancestry;  and 

i-»b-^-«>c't*<-^~^  *•*•*) 

hence  those  faculties  resided,  potentially, 'in  the 
lowest  unicellular  organism.  Scientists  may  differ 
in  regard  to  minor  details  relating  to  the  specific 
processes  by  which  the  physical  organisms  of  genera 
and  species  have  been  evolved;  but  the  doctrine  of 
^lity  is  common  to  all  forms  of  the  theory  of 
evolution  applied  to  biology. 

We  are  enabled,  therefore,  to  start  our  argument 
with  a  proposition  that  will  not  be  disputed  by  any 
scientific  evolutionist :  — 

The  mental  faculties  of  man  are  inherited  from  his 
lower  ancestors,  beginning  with  the  lowest  iiniccllul.ir 
organism. 


260        THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

This  general  proposition  cannot  be  successfully 
controverted,  and  no  evolutionist  will  make  the 
attempt.  It  involves  another  proposition,  however, 
which,  as  before  remarked,  is  its  corollary;  namely, 
that  the  faculties  of  manhood  exist  potentially  in  the 
lowest  form  of  animal  life,  to  wit,  the  moneron.  If 
the  first  proposition  is  true,  the  second  is  logically 
self-evident.  But,  lest  some  one  might  be  in- 
clined to  doubt  the  soundness  of  the  latter  proposi- 
tion, we  will  reduce  it  to  the  form  of  a  syllogism, 
thus:  — 

a/r<HAf<-\f  *<• 

1.  An  inherited  faculty  presupposes  the  existence 
of  that  faculty,  actually  or  potentially,   in  ,t»e  an- 
cestry, /;R€aF  and-remoteJ(ffom  wrtich  the  inheritance 
was  derived. j  ^ll 

2.  Man  inherited  his  faculties  from. his  (lower)  an- 

,      .  .  ,    i     £>*-^f\^t—     *        .      ,  ..- 

cestry,  beginning  with  the  lowest  form  of  animal  life. 

Therefore  the  faculties  of  manhood  resided  poten- 
tially in  the  lowest  form  of  animal  life. 

We  now  have  an  undisputed  and  indisputable 
proposition  to  start  with,  and  one  upon  which  I 
shall  hereinafter  strongly  insist.  It  must  be  re- 
membered, however,  that  I  have  not,  thus  far  in  this 
chapter,  stated  any  new  propositions.  I  am  merely 
trying  to  reduce  to  logical  form  and  consistency  the 
fundamental  truths  which  evolutionists  have  discov- 
ered, and  by  which  they  have  relegated  the  doctrine 
of  special  creations  to  the  realm  of  superstition. 
These  truths  were,  however,  supposed  to  be  atheistic 
by  those  who  first  applied  them;  but  I  shall  en- 
deavor to  show  that,  when  carried  to  their  legitimate 
conclusion,  they  are  the  stronghold  of  scientific 
theism. 


MIND  OF  MAWS  EARLIEST  ANCESTOR.     261 

The  reader  will  now  recall  the  fact  that,  in  Part 
I.  of  this  book,  I  have  endeavored  to  strengthen  the 
proposition  that  the  potentialities  of  the  highest1  X 
order  of  manhood  reside  in  the  lower  organisms.  I 
did  so  by  showing  that  all  the  instincts  of  the  lower 
animals  are  essentially  altruistic,  save  the  one 
instinct  of  self-preservation.  All  the  others,  begin- 
ning with  the  instinct  of  reproduction,  pertain  to 
future  generations,  —  first,  to  the  perpetuation  of  the 
species  by  reproduction,  and  secondly,  to  the  care 
and  preservation  of  the  young.  I  traced  the  devel- 
opment of  the  altruistic  instincts  and  impulses  to 
the  higher  civilization  of  man,  showing  that  they 
are  infinitely  stronger  than  the  purely  self-regarding 
instinct  of  self-preservation.  I  pointed  out  the  fact 
that  the  altruistic  instinct  lies  at  the  bottom  of  all 
progressive  development,  physical,  mental,  moral, 
and  religious;  and  that  in  that  sense  it  might  be 
termed  the  "evolutionary  instinct,"  —  the  constant, 
effective  energy,  inherent  in  every  sentient  creature, 
that  makes  for  physical,  mental,  and  moral  progress, 
for  the  higher  civilization,  for  universal  altruism. 

I  have  thus  endeavored  to  strengthen  the  final 
view  of  Huxley,  that  the  "struggle  for  existence 
within  the  organism  "  lies  at  the  bottom  of  all  pro- 
gressive physical  development  and  of  all  structural 
changes  of  physiological  organism,  by  showing  that 
it  is  equally  potent  in  mental,  social,  moral,  and 
religious  evolution.  And  I  have  thus  endeavored 
to  strengthen  the  proposition  of  the  atheistic  phi- 
losophers, that  the  potentials  of  manhood  reside  in 
the  moneron,  by  showing  that  the  first  reproduc- 
tive act  of  that  "organism  without  organs"  was 


262         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE    OF  MAN. 

C__  — «*- 

essentially  altruistic  and  progressive;' and  that  the 

instinctive  emotion  that  prompted  the  act,  together 
with  its  concomitant  altruistic  emotions,  — the  love 
of  offspring  and  care  for  the  young  and  helpless,  as 
manifested  in  all  those  actions  and  enterprises  that 
redound  to  the  benefit  of  future  generations,  now 
constitute  the  prepotent  agency  of  human  progress. 

And  the  intelligent  reader  will  not  fail  to  note 
that,  in  thus  reclassifying  the  human  instincts  and 
emotions  by  grouping  all  the  instincts  and  impulses 
that  pertain  to  the  well-being  of  future  generations 
into  one  class,  which  I  have  designated  as  "altru- 
istic," thus  leaving  the  purely  self-regarding  instinct 
of  self-preservation  in  a  subordinate  or  subsidiary 
class  by  itself,  I  have  suggested  a  law  of  evolu- 
tionary development  the  executive  energy  of  which 
inheres  in  that  prepotent  group  of  altruistic  emo- 
tions and  impulses.  But  that  of  itself  is  not  the 
most  significant  part  of  it.  Its  real  significance 
consists  in  the  fact  that  the  same  instincts  and 
faculties  that  cause  the  progressive  development  of 
animal  life  and  structural  organism,  also  serve  as 
the  prepotent  energy  that  causes  the  progressive 
development  of  mankind  toward  the  higher  civiliza- 
tion on  lines  leading  to  the  ultimate  goal  of  uni- 
versal altruism.  Nor  is  this  all ;  for,  if  this 
hypothesis  is  the  true  one,  it  follows  that  ^evolu- 
tionary progress,  physical,  mental,  moral,  and  reli- 
gious, follovys  the  lines  of  least  resistance  in  nature. 
In  other  words,  the  natural  tendency  of  all  the 
instincts,  except  that  of  self-preservation,  is  altru- 
istic, that  is,  other-regarding;  and  the  only  task 
imposed  upon  mankind  is  that  of  regulating  those 


MIND   OF  MAN'S  EARLIEST  ANCESTOR.    263 

instincts,  including  that  of  self-preservation,  and 
directing  their  energies  into  normal  channels.  This 
is  a  far  different  task  from  that  imposed  by  the  old 
philosophies  which  regarded  all  the  natural  im- 
pulses of  man  as  evil  and  only  evil;  which  regarded 
the  so-called  "animal  propensities"  as  something 
to  be  fought  and  annihilated,  instead  of  regulated, 
restrained,  purified,  elevated,  and  legitimated.  It 
gives  to  man  a  far  different  status  in  the  moral  uni- 
verse from  that  assumed  by  the  egoistic  philosophy 
of  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer,  which  assumes  that  all 
human  acts  are  prompted  by  selfishness;  and  that 
those  of  the  purest  altruism  are  but  selfishness  in  a 
slightly  less  offensive  form,  but  still  selfish.  In 
short,  the  old  philosophies  imposed  upon  man  the 
task  of  laboring  upon  the  lines  of  greatest  resistance 
in  nature  whenever  he  sought  to  elevate  himself  or 
benefit  mankind.  Whereas  the  hypothesis  that  I 
have  ventured  to  advance  presupposes  that  good  and 
only  good  was  implanted  in  the  primordial  germ. 
And  hence  I  have  ventured  to  assent  to  and  to  em- 
phasize the  doctrine  of  the  atheistic  evolutionists, 
that  the  potentials  of  manhood,  the  loftiest  man- 
hood, are  resident  in  the  lowest  form  of  animal  life. 
It  will  now  be  in  order  to  inquire  what  evidence 
is  to  be  found  in  the  mental  phenomena  of  the  lower 
orders  of  animal  life  to  justify  such  a  stupendous 
and  far-reaching  generalization.  To  that  end  we 
will,  partly  by  way  of  recapitulation,  group  those 
phenomena  which  are  demonstrative  of  the  posses- 
sion, by  the  lower  animals,  of  faculties  and  powers 
some  of  which,  by  development  alone,  may  reach  the 
highest  possible  grades  of  human  intelligence. 


264        THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE  OF  MAN. 

Let  us  begin  with  the  intelligence  possessed  by 
the  lowest  unicellular  organism.  That  intelligence 
is  designated  by  the  name  of  "instinct;"  and  by 
most  of  the  atheistic  philosophers  it  is  thus  dis- 
missed as  possessing  no  special  significance  beyond 
the  fact  that  it  is  a  curious  phenomenon  common  to 
the  lower  organisms.  Their  object,  in  fact,  seems 
to  be  to  avoid  the  obvious  significance  of  the  phe- 
nomena; and  hence  they  dismiss  it  by  a  resort  to  the 
usual  petitio  principii.  This,  as  I  have  already 
pointed  out,  is  the  invariable  method  of  atheistic 
reasoning  whenever  its  votaries  are  confronted  with 
a  phenomenon  that  clearly  points  to  a  theistic  con- 
clusion. Hence  they  have  resorted  to  the  use  of 
such  words  and  phrases  as  "irritability"  and  "reflex 
action,"  to  account  for  the  obvious  intelligence  of 
the  lower  organisms.  Thus,  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer 
classes  all  reflex  action  as  instinct;  and  then,  pre- 
sumably, in  order  to  show  that  it  is  a  poor  rule  that 
will  not  work  both  ways,  he  coolly  informs  us  that 
all  instinct  is  "reflex  action."  To  do  him  entire 
justice,  however,  it  must  be  stated  that  he  does 
not  confine  himself  to  this  formula;  for  when  he 
comes  across  a  particularly  hard  nut  to  crack,  — 
that  is  to  say,  when  he  comes  to  an  instinctive 
action  that  obviously  is  not  a  "reflex  action,"  he 
ably  gathers  it  in  under  the  term  "  compound  reflex 
action." 

I  will  not  undertake  the  superfluous  task  of  refut- 
ing a  proposition  so  obviously  unsound  ;  for  Romanes 
has  ably  performed  that  task  in  his  "  Mental  Evolu- 
tion in  Animals,"  to  which  the  reader  is  referred.  I 
•will  only  pause  to  remark  that  Mr.  Spencer's  phi- 


MIXD   OF  MAN'S  EARLIEST  ANCESTOR.    26$ 

losophy  of  instinct  justifies  the  well-worn  definition 
of  metaphysics,  namely :  "  Metaphysics  consists  in  the" 
invention  of  terms  that  have  no  meaning,  and  then 
explaining  things  by  those  terms." 

As  Romanes  has  clearly  shown,  though  perhaps  in 
milder  and  more  round-about  phraseology  than  I  am 
able  to  employ,  the  terms  "  reflex  action  "  and  "  com- 
pound reflex  action "  are  absolutely  meaningless 
when  applied  to  the  great  bulk  of  instincts  with 
which  animals  and  human  beings  are  endowed. 

But  what  is  instinct?  This  question  can  be  an- 
swered intelligently  only  by  confining  ourselves  to 
facts  and  phenomena,  and  divesting  ourselves  of  the 
prejudices  engendered  by  the  use  of  those  so-called 
"  scientific  "  terms  by  which  the  whole  subject  has 
been  so  ably  obscured.  Especially  do  we  need  to 
divest  ourselves  of  the  impressions  engendered  by 
the  use  of  terms  that  in  themselves  imply  a  theory 
of  causation,  such  as  "  reflex  action,"  whether  simple 
or  compound,  "  irritability,"  "  inspiration,"  "  special 
providence,"  "special  creation,"  and  "spontaneous 
generation."  In  other  words,  let  us  examine  the 
facts  of  instinct,  and  then  see  if  we  can  find  a  defini- 
tion that  will  fit  the  facts.  When  that  is  done,  we 
may  look  for  a  theory  of  causation  that  will  fit  the 
facts,  —  not  before.  That  is  to  say,  let  us  treat  the 
question  by  the  inductive  method,  —  reasoning  from 
facts  to  the  general  law  underlying  them,  —  and  not 
by  first  formulating  a  disputable  postulate  and  then 
distorting  the  facts  to  fit  the  assumed  theory  of 
causation.  Now,  what  are  the  facts,  the  primordial 
facts,  of  instinct?  I  begin  with  the  lowest  animal 
organism,  for  it  is  at  the  very  threshold  of  the  or- 


266         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

ganic  world  that  we  must  find,  if  anywhere,  the  facts 
that  will  reveal  the  origin  of  life. 

Again,  we  will  accept  the  facts  from  atheistic 
sources.  If  the  reader  will  now  re-examine  the 
chapter  in  Part  I.  in  which  the  psychic  life  of  micro- 
organisms is  discussed,  he  will  more  fully  appreciate 
the  point  we  are  about  to  examine.  In  the  mean 
time  it  will  be  sufficient  to  mention  the  salient  fea- 
tures of  what  we  have  previously  learned.  Haeckel 
tells  us  that  the  moneron  —  that  wonderful  "or- 
ganism without  organs,"  that  stands  upon  the  very 
threshold  of  the  organic  world  —  is  endowed  with  the 
faculty  of  sensation.  That  is  to  say,  it  is  capable  of 
feeling,  for  it  reacts  to  stimuli.  It  shrinks  from  con- 
tact with  that  which  will  injure  it.  In  other  words, 
it  not  only  has  sensation,  but  it  is  endowed  with  the 
instinct  of  self-preservation,  and  instantly  adopts 
the  only  means  of  self-protection  within  its  power. 
It  adapts  means  to  ends;  and  this,  according  to 
Romanes  and  Binet,  is  indubitable  evidence  of 
intelligence. 

Haeckel  also  tells  us  that  the  moneron  seeks  and 
obtains  nourishment;  and,  having  found  it,  it  per- 
forms the  functions  of  digestion  and  assimilation.  It 
can  be  fed  artificially,  and  the  process  of  digestion 
can  be  plainly  seen  under  the  microscope.  The 
food,  when  colored  for  that  purpose,  can  be  seen  to 
enter  the  body  indifferently  at  any  and  all  points, 
and  to  move  from  one  part  of  the  body  to  another,  — 
"irregularly  driven  about  in  all  directions;"1  thus 
demonstrating  at  once  the  total  absence  of  physical 
organism,  and  the  power  which  is  resident  in  its 

1  The  Evolution  of  Man,  vol.  ii.  p.  47. 


MIXD   OF  MAN'S  EARLIEST  ANCESTOR.     267 

mind  to  sustain  life  by  adapting  means  to  that  end. 
Moreover,  Binet  tells  us  that  unicellular  organisms 
exercise  the  power  of  choice  between  that  which  is 
nutritious  and  that  which  is  inert  or  deleterious;  all 
of  which  constitute  further  proofs  of  intelligence, 
further  demonstrations  of  the  existence  of  a  mind 
organism. 

Again,  Haeckel  informs  us  that  his  moneron  is 
endowed  with  powers  of  locomotion.  That  is  to  say, 
it  can  move  from  place  to  place  by  means  of  impro- 
vised limbs  (pseudopodia)  which  it  projects  at  will 
from  any  part  of  the  body.1  It  is  by  means  of  these 
improvised  limbs  that  it  moves  about  in  search  of 
nourishment;  and  Professor  Gates  has  demonstrated 
that  it  has  a  memory  of  the  direction  in  which  food 
may  be  obtained,  and  that  it  can  be  educated  to  return 
to  the  place  where  it  has  once  found  food  to  its  lik- 
ing. This,  as  Ribot  has  clearly  shown,  is  indubitable 
proof  of  consciousness.2 

Lastly,  Professor  Haeckel  tells  us  that  the  moneron 
reproduces  itself  asexually,  that  is,  by  fission  or 
segmentation.  The  particular  species  which  we  have 
been  considering,  namely,  the  Protamceba,  after  it 
has  attained  a  certain  size,  simply  separates  into  two 
pieces.  "Thus,  in  the  simplest  possible  way,  two 
new  individuals  proceed  by  self-division  from  one 
quite  simple  individual."8 

And  thus  was  performed  the  first  act  of  primordial 
altruism.  Thus  was  taken  the  first  step  in  the  pro- 

1  It  should  be  noted  here  that  there  are  many  different  genera  and 
species  of  monera;  but  the   essentials  above   enumerated  are  the 
same  in  all. 

2  See  "  Diseases  of  Personality,"  p.  6. 
8  Op.  cit.  p.  48. 


268          THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

cess  of  organic  evolution,  —  the  first  advance  in  the 
phylogenetic  series  that  culminated  in  man.  Thus 
were  exhibited  for  the  first  time  in  the  organic 
history  of  the  earth  all  the  phenomena  of  life,  of 
sensation,  movement,  nutrition,  reproduction,  and 
intelligence,  —  the  promise  and  potentialities  of  a 
human  soul. 

These  are  the  facts,  these  the  phenomena,  relating 
to  the  instincts  of  the  primordial  germ.  Now,  let  us 
for  the  moment  ignore  all  the  "  set  phrase  of  speech  " 
with  which  theorists  have  befogged  the  question, 
especially  all  those  words  and  phrases  which  imply 
preconceived  theories  of  causation. 

Looking  the  simple  facts  squarely  in  the  face, 
then,  what  do  we  find  ? 

First,  a  bit  of  protoplasma  that  is  alive.  It  is  a 
living,  moving  entity.  It  is  an  animate  creature,  and 
hence  is  endowed  with  a  mind ;  for  having  a  mind  is 
the  distinction  between  the  animate  and  the  inanimate 
in  all  nature. 

Secondly,  we  have  found  a  sentient  creature  that 
does  things ;  and  voluntary  action  is  a  crucial  dis- 
tinction between  the  animate  and  the  inanimate. 

Thirdly,  we  have  found  an  animate,  sentient  crea- 
ture that  knows  something.  We  know  that  it  knows 
something  because  it  does  something;  and  the  only 
criterion  by  which  we  can  judge  of  what  or  how 
much  it  knows,  is  by  observation  of  what  it  does. 
If  therefore  we  find  that  this  creature  invariably 
does  what  reason  would  approve,  we  must  conclude 
that  its  intelligence,  limited  though  it  may  be,  is  of  a 
very  superior  quality. 

Fourthly,  we  find  that  this  creature  invariably  does 


MIND   OF  MAN'S  EARLIEST  ANCESTOR.     269 

that  which  reason  would  approve.  Thus,  (i)  it 
never  rushes  into  danger,  but  avoids  it  if  possible. 
(Reaction  to  sensory  stimuli.)  (2)  It  does  not  lie 
inert,  but  moves  about  in  search  of  food  by  means 
of  improvised  limbs.  (Spontaneous  movement.) 
(3)  Having  found  food,  it  does  not  reject  it,  but 
absorbs  it,  rejecting  only  that  which  is 
What  it  has  absorbed  it  digests  and  assimilates. 
(Nutrition.)  (4)  Finally,  having  attained  maturity,  it  no 
longer  confines  its  energies  to  purely  selfish  acts ;  but 
it  reproduces  itself,  and  thus  provides  for  the  perpetu- 
ation of  its  species,  —  provides  for  future  generations, 
for  evolutionary  progress.  (Reproduction.) 

In  short,  the  moneron  exercises  all  the  primary 
functions  and  produces  all  the  primary  phenomena 
of  organic  life,  —  sensation,  movement,  nutrition,  and 
reproduction.  And  it  does  so  in  a  way  that  presup- 
poses intelligence,  for  it  adapts  means  to  ends,  and 
exercises  the  power  of  choice  ;  which,  as  we  have 
already  learned  from  Binet,  Romanes,  Gates,  Ribot, 
and  others,  is  the  crucial  test  of  intelligence. 

Now,  to  reduce  what  we  have  learned  from  the 
actions  of  the  moneron  to  its  lowest  terms,  we  must 
conclude :  — 

1.  That  the  precision   with   which   the    moneron 
performs  its  functions,  and  the  invariably  beneficent 
results  which  follow,  are  demonstrative  that  its  acts 
are  in  accordance  with  a  law,  and  that  that  law  is  the 
primary  law  of  organic  life. 

2.  That  the  intelligence  with  which  the  moneron 
is  endowed  consists  of  a  knowledge  of  the  primary 
law  of  organic  life. 

I  have  shown  in  previous  chapters  that  instinct  and 


2/0          THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

intuition  are  identical,  differing  only  in  degree  and 
subject-matter,  and  that  they  both  have  to  do  exclu- 
sively with  general  laws  or  first  principles.  The  con- 
clusion, therefore,  that  the  moneron  is  endowed  with 
a  knowledge  of  the  primary  laws  of  organic  life  not 
only  accords  with  what  we  know  ot  instinct  or  intui- 
tion in  general,  but  it  is  in  strict  accordance  with  the 
observable  phenomena  in  the  life  of  the  moneron. 

We  are  prepared,  therefore,  to  define  instinct, 
as  we  find  it  existing  in  the  lowest  form  of  animal 
life,  as  the  power  of  immediate  perception  or  appre- 
hension of  the  essential  laws  of  its  being;  this  power 
being  antecedent  to  and  independent  of  reason,  in- 
struction, or  experience. 

Now,  whatsoever  may  be  one's  theory  of  causation, 
or  his  hypothesis  as  to  the  origin  of  life,  whether  it 
be  spontaneous  generation  or  special  creation,  it  can- 
not be  denied  that  the  facts  of  the  organic  history 
of  the  moneron  justify  this  definition  of  its  instincts. 
This  conclusion  cannot  be  evaded  without  plunging 
into  the  realms  of  the  supernatural  and  setting  up  the 
hypothesis  of  perpetual  miracle.  That  is  to  say,  the 
monera  are  obviously  impelled  to  action  by  an  intel- 
ligent energy  or  force ;  and  this  intelligence  is  either 
resident  within  the  organism  or  it  is  an  extraneous 
force.  As  the  latter  would  imply  a  perpetual  mira- 
cle, science  is  driven  to  accept  the  other  hypothesis 
in  order  to  keep  within  the  domain  of  natural  law. 
Even  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer's  doctrine  of  reflex  action 
does  not  militate  against  the  theory  of  an  intelligent 
energy  within ;  for  in  its  simplest  form,  that  of  reac- 
tion to  peripheral  stimuli,  reflex  action  presupposes 
a  subjective  intelligence  within  the  organism,  —  an 


MIND   OF  MAN'S  EARLIEST  ANCESTOR.     2/1 

intelligence  that  is  endowed  with  the  instinct  of  self- 
preservation.  In  other  words,  reaction  to  stimuli  is 
neither  more  nor  less  than  shrinking  from  danger, — 
an  act  which  is  necessarily  prompted  by  an  intelli- 
gence which  apprehends  or  perceives  an  imminent 
danger;  an  intelligence  which  instantly  adapts  means 
to  ends  by  adopting  the  only  course  by  which  it  can 
avert  the  threatened  injury,  namely,  by  moving  itself 
away  from  the  danger  point.  If  the  act  were  not 
prompted  by  intelligence,  it  would  be  just  as  apt  to 
move  toward  the  danger  point  as  from  it.v  In  this 
regard  the  action  of  the  moneron  differs  in  no  respect 
from  that  of  the  most  highly  organized  human  being. 
The  latter,  however,  employs  a  nervous  organism, 
the  afferent  nerves  conveying  the  impulse  to  a  nerve 
centre,  whence  it  is  reflected  back  as  an  efferent 
impulse,  independently  of  the  volition  of  the  objective 
mind. 

It  is  at  this  point  that  the  old  psychology  fails  to 
account  correctly  for  reflex  action.  Knowing  nothing 
of  the  subjective  mind,  as  distinguished  from  the 
mind  of  which  the  brain  is  the  organ ;  and  realizing 
that  the  efferent  impulse  is  independent  of  volition, 
that  is,  the  volition  of  the  objective  mind,  the  in- 
ference was  that,  somehow,  reflex  action  is  not 
prompted  by  intelligence.  Whereas,  in  point  of  fact, 
it  is  prompted  by  the  highest  intelligence  that  man 
possesses,  namely,  that  of  the  subjective  mind, —  the 
mind  of  instinct  or  intuition,  the  mind  that  is  ever 
alert  for  the  preservation  of  the  body.  Reflex 
action,  therefore,  as  manifested  in  reaction  to  a 
peripheral  stimulus,  as  when  a  limb  is  pricked  by 
a  sharp  instrument,  is  the  simplest  phenomenal 


272         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

manifestation  of  the  instinct  of  self-preservation. 
It  is  manifested  alike  in  the  moneron  and  in  man, 
for  it  is  prompted  by  the  same  subjective  intelligence. 
There  is  this  difference,  however :  in  the  moneron 
the  act  is  performed  independently  of  physical 
organs,  which  is  another  demonstrative  proof  that 
the  subjective  mind  antedated  physical  organism. 

Having  shown  that  the  phenomena  due  to  sensation 
in  the  moneron  are  prompted  by  intelligence,  we 
need  not  produce  arguments  to  show  that  all  its 
other  functions  are  prompted  by  the  same  intelli- 
gence; for  two  of  the  other  three  functions  are 
manifestations  of  the  same  instinct,  namely,  that 
of  self-preservation.  That  is  to  say,  three  of  the 
four  classes  of  the  phenomena  of  organic  life,  as 
manifested  in  the  primordial  germ,  namely,  those 
of  sensation,  movement,  and  nutrition,  are  all  due 
to  that  instinct.  The  phenomenon  of  reproduction, 
on  the  other  hand,  is  due  to  a  totally  different 
instinct,  as  I  have  hereinbefore  pointed  out.  I  have 
ventured  to  designate  it  as  the  "  evolutionary  in- 
stinct" or  the  ''altruistic  instinct."  It  is  entitled 
to  the  first  designation  because  it  constitutes  that 
powerful,  creative  energy  that  lies  at  the  bottom 
of  all  progressive  physical  development  of  animal 
life.  It  is  entitled  to  the  second  designation  because 
it  prompts  to  acts  that  pertain  exclusively  to  future 
generations,  and  is  therefore  the  basis  of  all  the 
altruistic  emotions. 

And  this  is  why  I  have  felt  compelled  to  define 
instinct,  as  we  find  it  manifested  in  the  lowest  form 
of  animal  life,  in  the  general  terms  I  have  employed. 
That  is  to  say,  the  instinct  of  the  moneron  is  not 


MIND   OF  MAN'S  EARLIEST  ANCESTOR.     2/3 

merely  the  instinct  of  self-preservation,  although 
it  includes  that  instinct;  but  it  also  includes  that 
which  is  in  a  sense  the  exact  opposite.  In  a  word, 
it  includes  that  energy  that  lies  at  the  bottom  of  all 
evolutionary  development,  —  physical,  mental,  moral, 
and  spiritual.  It  is  upon  this  hypothesis  alone  that 
evolutionists  can  logically  predicate  the  doctrine  of 
the  descent  of  man  from  the  moneron.  It  is  upon 
these  facts  alone  that  they  can  logically  assume 
that  the  potentials  of  manhood  are  resident  in  the 
moneron. 

The  instincts  of  the  moneron  cannot  therefore  be 
adequately  defined  in  terms  that  will  not  apply  to 
the  highest  intuitions  of  man ;  for  if  man  is  descended 
from  the  moneron,  it  follows  that  his  highest  intuitions 
are  the  result  of  the  development  of  identical  faculties 
existing  inchoate  in  that  ancestor. 

Moreover,  tJie  instincts  of  the  moneron  cannot  be 
adequately  defined  or  described  except  in  terms  that 
are  also  definitive  of  omniscience. 

We  find,  therefore,  in  the  lowest  unicellular  organ- 
ism known  to  science,  psychical  faculties  that  by 
development  become  the  highest  mental  attributes 
of  man,  and  by  extension  to  infinity,  the  highest 
conceivable  attributes  of  an  Omniscient  Deity.  y 

us-*  *^i,*J 


18 


CHAPTER  IV. 

OTHER  GODLIKE  POTENTIALS  IN  THE  MIND   OF  THE 
MONERON. 

Endowed  with  Creative  Powers. —  The  Real  "Origin  of  Species."  — 
HaeckePs  Admissions.  —  Its  Development  from  the  Undifferen- 
tiated  Moneron  to  the  Differentiated  Amoeba.  —  The  Energy 
"from  within." — The  Greatest  Single  Step  in  the  Process  of 
Evolution.  —  The  Key  to  the  Whole  Mystery.  —  The  Creative 
Power  of  Mind.  —  We  must  infer  that  all  other  Changes  in 
Organism  were  due  to  the  same  Creative  Energy.  —  It  is  the 
Constant  Force  behind  all  Progressive  Development. —  Huxley 
on  the  Innate  Creative  Powers  of  Animal  Intelligence.  —  The 
Growth  and  Development  of  the  Salamandrine  Egg.  — The  Power 
of  the  Water  Newt  to  reproduce  Lost  Limbs. — These  Poweis 
Typical  Examples  of  Creative  Energy.  —  They  are  Nature's 
Divine  Revelations.  —  This  Creative  Power  by  Extension  to 
Infinity  would  mean  Omnipotence.  —  Its  Knowledge  of  the 
Essential  Laws  of  its  Being  by  Extension  would  mean  Omni- 
science.—  Its  Power  is  that  of  Mind  over  Matter.  —  It  is,  then, 
essentially  Godlike,  differing  only  in  Degree.  —  The  Tendency 
of  Science  to  name  Things  in  the  Absence  of  an  Explanation. — 
The  Popular  Belief  that  Names  do  explain  Things.  —  Illustrative 
Examples. — The  Theory  of  the  Unconscious.  —  Hence  Learned 
Talk  of  the  Unconscious  Acts  of  the  Lower  Animals. —  All  the 
Facts  of  Experience  show  that  the  Subjective  Mind  of  Man  is 
most  intensely  Conscious.  —  We  have  a  Right  to  infer  that  the 
same  is  True  of  Animals.  —  The  same  Laws  prevail. —  Subjective 
"  Unconsciousness,"  therefore,  is  Objective  Ignorance  of  the 
States  of  Subjective  Consciousness.  —  The  Same  is  True  of  our 
Knowledge  of  Consciousness  of  Lower  Animals.  —  Instinctive 
Acts  are  therefore  presumably  Conscious  Acts. — The  Conscious- 
ness of  a  Godlike  Mind.  —  Whence  came  it  ?  —  There  are  but 
Two  Hypotheses.  —  One  is  Spontaneous  Generation;  the  Other  is 
Divine  Inheritance. —  One  is  Atheism;  the  Other  is  Theism. — 


OTHER  POWERS  OF  THE  MONERON.     2?$ 

One  is  without  a  Fact  to  support  it,  —  it  rests  upon  Pure 
Assumption,  —  a  Petitio  Prindpii,  Gross  and  Palpable ;  the 
Other  will  be  discussed  in  the  Ensuing  Chapters. 

I  HAVE  now  shown  that  the  mental  faculties  with 
which  the  lowest  unicellular  organism  is  endowed 
contain  the  promise  and  potency  of  a  human  soul. 
I  have  thus  confirmed  the  essential  hypothesis  of 
evolution,  which  is  that  man  descended  from  the 
primordial  germ,  and  hence,  ex  hypothesi,  in  the 
primordial  germ  resided  the  potentialities  of  man- 
hood. In  doing  this  I  have  been  careful  to  draw 
upon  the  acknowledged  authorities  on  the  subject 
of  evolution  for  my  facts;  and  I  have  given  to 
those  facts  the  only  interpretation  that  can  possibly 
confirm  their  fundamental  hypothesis.  I  have  also 
shown  that  the  only  legitimate  interpretation  of  their 
facts  not  only  confirms  the  theory  that  the  poten- 
tialities of  manhood  reside  in  the  primordial  germ, 
but  that  the  quality  of  mind  exhibited  in  man's  x 
remotest  earthly  ancestor  is  essentially  godlike,  • 
differing  from  Omniscience  only  in  degree,  and, 
not  in  kind. 

It  remains  to  inquire  what  other  godlike  powers 
inhere  in  the  mind  with  which  the  moneron  is  en- 
dowed. And,  in  doing  so,  let  us  continue  the  policy 
of  ignoring  all  preconceived  theories  of  causation, 
looking  only  to  the  facts  for  guidance  to  conclusions. 

The  first  question  to  be  considered  is,  What  powers 
might  we  reasonably  expect  to  find  in  a  being  that 
is  invested  with  such  transcendent  potentialities  as 
science  has  found  the  moneron  to  be  clothed  withal? 
We  have  already  seen  that  that  being  is  invested  with 
the  potentialities  of  manhood;  nay,  that  its  intelli- 


276        THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

gence  is  godlike  in  kind.  Now,  if  it  is  true,  as 
Lamarck  holds,  and  as  Huxley  believes,  that  the 
"  struggle  for  life  within  the  organism "  lies  at  the 
bottom  of  all  physiological  changes  incident  to  pro- 
gressive development  of  animal  life  on  this  planet, 
we  may  reasonably  expect  to  find  evidences  of 
the  fact  in  the  lowest  unicellular  organisms.  Again, 
if  it  is  true  that  an  energy  inheres  in  the  mental 
organism  of  animals  that  is  equal  to  the  production 
of  physiological  changes,  or,  in  other  words,  that  is 
able  to  originate  new  species,  the  power  can  be 
designated  by  no  words  less  significant  than  creative 
energy.  f^»^  SfrK  •*•  — • — ^^  / 

Let  us,  then,  call  Professor  Haeckel  to  the  stand 
once  more,  and  inquire  how  the  second  stage  was 
reached  in  the  process  of  organic  evolution.  He 
says : — 

"  Next  to  the  simple  cytod-bodies  of  the  monera,  as 
the  second  ancestral  stage  in  the  human  pedigree  (as  in 
that  of  all  other  animals),  comes  the  simple  cell,  that  most 
undififerentiated  cell-form,  which,  at  the  present  time,  still 
leads  an  independent  solitary  life,  as  the  amreba.  For 
the  first  and  oldest  process  of  organic  differentiation,  which 
affected  the  homogeneous  and  structureless  plasson-body  of 
the  monera,  caused  the  separation  of  the  latter  into  two  dif- 
ferent substances :  an  inner  firmer  substance,  the  kernel,  or 
nucleus ;  and  an  outer,  softer  substance,  the  cell-substance, 
or  protoplasma.  By  this  extremely  important  separative 
process,  by  the  differentiation  of  the  plasson  into  nucleus 
and  protoplasm,  the  organized  cell  originated  from  the 
structureless  cytod,  the  nucleated  from  the  non-nucleated 
plastid.  That  the  cells  which  first  appeared  upon  the  earth 
originated  in  this  manner,  by  the  differentiation  of  the 


OTHER  POWERS  OF  THE  Af  ONE  RON.     277 

monera,  is  a  conception  which  in  the  present  condition  of 
histological  knowledge  seems  quite  allowable ;  for  we  can 
even  yet  directly  observe  this  oldest  histological  process  of 
differentiation  in  ontogeny."  l 

Is  it  too  much  to  say  that  here  we  have  a  key 
to  the  whole  mystery  with  which  the  question  of 
organic  evolution  is  invested?  Here  is  the  first 
tangible  evidence  we  have  of  the  creative  power  of 
mind.  And  here,  most  certainly,  is  the  key  to  the 
mystery  that  has  been  woven  about  the  origin  of 
species.  For  the  amoeba  is  the  first  distinct  species 
that  had  its  origin  in  another  and  an  antecedent 
species.  Moreover,  as  I  have  before  remarked,  the 
step  from  the  moneron  to  the  amoeba  was  the  great- 
est single  step  that  has  ever  been  taken  in  organic 
history.  For  the  difference  between  any  organism 
and  no  organism  is  necessarily  greater  than  the 
difference  between  any  two  successive  or  contiguous 
organisms  in  the  phylogenetic  series. 

Now,  the  question  is,  What  was  the  power  that  pro- 
duced the  change  from  the  moneron  to  the  amoeba, 
and  where  does  it  reside?  For  there  must  have 
been  some  form  of  energy  behind  so  vast  a  change, 
unless,  indeed,  we  are  content  to  relegate  the  whole 
question  to  the  domain  of  chance  or  of  miracle.  As 
natural  selection  cannot  be  supposed  to  figure  in  the 
case,  we  must  dismiss  the  hypothesis  of  chance  as 
untenable.  As  science  cannot  admit  the  hypothesis 
of  miracle,  we  are  compelled  to  look  elsewhere  for 
a  solution  of  the  problem. 

Now,  there   are   two   things   that  are   self-evident 

1  The  Evolution  of  Man,  vol.  ii.  p.  50. 


2?8         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

in  regard  to  the  energy  that  lies  at  the  bottom 
of  the  change  from  the  moneron  to  the  amoeba: 
(i)  we  know  that  this  energy  exists;  and  (2)  we 
know  that  it  is  moved  by  intelligence.  That  is  to 
say,  it  is  an  intelligent  force.  We  know  that  much 
because  it  constantly  does  that  which  reason  would 
approve.  Its  efforts  are  constantly  directed  toward 
the  accomplishment  of  some  specific,  beneficent  end. 
In  short,  it  adapts  means  to  ends,  which  is  the  test 
of  intelligence  as  distinguished  from  chance. 

We  also  know  that  this  intelligent  energy  is  either 
resident  within  the  organism  or  that  it  is  an  extrane- 
ous force.  As  the  latter  implies  a  miracle,  we  are 
driven  to  the  conclusion  that  an  intelligent,  creative 
energy  is  resident  within  the  lowest  animal  organism  ; 
and  that  this  intelligent,  creative  energy  originated 
the  first  species  of  animals  known  to  science  as  hav- 
ing a  physical  organism. 

From  this  primordial  fact  we  have  a  right,  until 
the  contrary  is  proven,  to  infer  that  all  subsequent 
changes  of  physiological  organism  are  brought  about 
by  the  same  agency.  That  is  to  say,  we  have  a  right 
to  infer  that  the  intelligent,  creative  energy  that  has 
been  shown  to  exist  in  the  moneron,  that  energy 
which  Lamarck  designates  as  "  appetency,"  and 
Huxley  describes  as  "  the  struggle  for  life  within  the 
organism^?  is  the  constant  force,  the  impellent  energy, 
that  is  the  efficient  cause  of  all  progressive  develop- 
ment of  animal  life ;  that  is,  in  short,  the  origin  of 
species. 

Does  any  one  doubt  the  existence  of  creative 
energy  within  the  animal  organism?  If  so,  let  him 
observe  some  of  the  commonest  phenomena  within 


OTHER  POWERS  OF  THE  M  ONE  RON.     279 

the  range  of  observation  of  everybody,  —  phenomena 
so  common,  indeed,  that  few  pause  to  reflect  upon 
their  profound  significance.  For  instance,  let  him 
study  the  development  of  the  chick  from  the  egg  or 
the  plant  from  the  seed.  Apropos  of  this,  Professor 
Huxley,  in  speaking  of  heredity  and  the  physiology 
of  reproduction,  has  this  to  say:  — 

"  The  student  of  Nature  wonders  the  more  and  is 
astonished  the  less,  the  more  conversant  he  becomes  with 
her  operations  ;  but  of  all  the  perennial  miracles  she  offers 
to  his  inspection,  perhaps  the  most  worthy  of  his  admiration 
is  the  development  of  a  plant  or  of  an  animal  from  its 
embryo.  Examine  the  recently  laid  egg  of  some  common 
animal,  such  as  a  salamander  or  a  newt.  It  is  a  minute 
spheroid  in  which  the  best  microscope  will  reveal  nothing 
but  a  structureless  sac,  enclosing  a  glairy  fluid,  holding 
granules  in  suspension.  But  strange  possibilities  lie  dor- 
mant in  that  semi-fluid  globule.  Let  a  moderate  supply  of 
warmth  reach  its  watery  cradle,  and  the  plastic  matter  un- 
dergoes changes  so  rapid,  and  so  purposelike  in  their 
succession,  that  one  can  only  compare  them  to  those 
operated  by  a  skilled  modeller  upon  a  formless  lump  of 
clay.  As  with  an  invisible  trowel,  the  mass  is  divided 
and  subdivided  into  smaller  and  smaller  portions,  until  it  is 
reduced  to  an  aggregation  of  granules  not  too  large  to  build 
withal  the  finest  fabrics  of  the  nascent  organism.  And, 
then,  it  is  as  if  a  delicate  finger  traced  out  the  line  to  be 
occupied  by  the  spinal  column,  and  moulded  the  contour 
of  the  body ;  pinching  up  the  head  at  one  end,  the  tail  at 
the  other,  and  fashioning  flank  and  limb  into  due  sala- 
mandrine  proportions,  in  so  artistic  a  way  that,  after  watch- 
ing the  process  hour  by  hour,  one  is  almost  involuntarily 
possessed  by  the  notion  that  some  more  subtle  aid  to  vision 


280         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

than  an  achromatic  would  show  the  hidden  artist,  with  his 
plan  before  him,  striving  with  skilful  manipulation  to  perfect 
his  work. 

"  As  life  advances,  and  the  young  amphibian  ranges  the 
waters,  the  terror  of  his  insect  contemporaries,  not  only  are 
the  nutritious  particles  supplied  by  its  prey,  by  the  addition 
of  which  to  its  frame  growth  takes  place,  laid  down,  each 
in  its  proper  spot,  and  in  due  proportion  to  the  rest,  as  to 
reproduce  the  form,  the  color,  and  the  size,  characteristic  of 
the  parental  stock ;  but  even  the  wonderful  powers  of  repro- 
ducing lost  parts  possessed  by  these  animals  are  controlled 
by  the  same  governing  tendency.  Cut  off  the  legs,  the  tail, 
the  jaws,  separately  or  all  together,  and,  as  Spallanzani 
showed  long  ago,  these  parts  not  only  grow  again,  but  the 
redintegrated  limb  is  formed  on  the  same  type  as  those 
which  were  lost.  The  new  jaw,  or  leg,  is  a  newt's,  and  never 
by  any  accident  more  like  that  of  a  frog."  1 

I  have  quoted  this  passage  from  Huxley  for  two 
reasons :  First,  because  evolutionists  rightly  hold  that 
the  laws  governing  the  development  of  the  germinal 
cell  are  the  same  as  those  governing  the  development 
of  the  primordial  germ.  That  is  to  say,  the  onto- 
genetic  history  of  the  germinal  cell  in  many  cases  is 
a  reproduction  of  the  salient  features  of  the  phylo- 
genetic  history  of  the  primordial  germ.  The  creative 
energy,  therefore,  the  operations  of  which  may  be 
observed  under  the  microscope  in  the  one  case,  is 
illustrative  of  powers  which  are  exercised  in  the  other. 
Secondly,  the  reproduction  of  lost  limbs  by  the  water 
newt  is  an  example,  which  each  may  observe  for  him- 
self, of  that  creative  power,  resident  within  the  animal 
organism,  that  is  the  source  and  agency  of  all  organic 

1  Darwiniana,  p.  29  et  stq. 


OTHER  POWERS  OF  THE  MONERON.     28 1 

growth  and  development.  JFacts  are  Nature's  divine 
^ejyelations ;  and  she  never  fails  to  give  us  patent 
exemplifications  of  her  latent  powers. 

I  have  now  shown  that  the  intelligence  resident  in 
the  lowest  form  of  animal  life  is  of  such  a  nature  that, 
by  extension  to  infinity,  it  could  be  characterized  by 
no  word  but  "  omniscience."  And  I  have  shown  that 
this  same  intelligence  is  invested  with  creative  powers 
such  as,  by  enlargement  to  infinity,  would  constitute 
omnipotence. 

Its  knowledge  is  of  the  essential  laws  of  its  being; 
and  this  knowledge  is  antecedent  to  reason,  experience, 
or  instruction.  It  is  intuitive  knowledge;  but  it  is 
perfect,  for  it  never  makes  a  mistake.  What  more 
can  be  said  of  omniscience? 

Its  power  is  that  of  mind  over  matter.  It  assembles 
matter  and  creates  a  structural  organism.  What 
more  can  be  said  of  omnipotence  than  that  it  as- 
sembles matter  and  creates  a  structural  universe? 

Proportioned  to  its  stage  of  development  and  the 
limits  of  its  environment,  therefore,  the  mind  of  the 
moneron  is  essentially  godlike. 

The  underlying  facts  leading  to  these  conclusions 
no  evolutionist  can  or  will  deny.  Atheistic  philoso- 
phers will  talk  learnedly  about  the  "  unconscious," 
automatic  acts  of  the  lower  organisms,  and  will 
gravely  inform  us  that  there  is  no  intelligence  in  in- 
stinct; that  it  is  all  accounted  for  by  the  use  of  some 
such  words  as  "  irritability,"  or  "  reflex  action ;  " 
and  that  even  the  hardest  problems  can  be  solved  by 
the  use  of  the  phrase  "  compound  reflex  action." 
To  be  entirely  candid,  it  must  be  said  that  these 
and  other  words  and  phrases  of  similar  import  have 


282         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

served  their  purpose  admirably;  for  the  average 
atheistic  mind  happens  to  be  so  constructed  that  it 
considers  any  perplexing  phenomenon  to  be  satis- 
factorily and  scientifically  explained  when  some  emi- 
nent philosopher  gives  it  a  name.v 

Thus,  the  late  Professor  W.  B.  Carpenter  many  years 
ago  summarily  disposed  of  a  very  large  instalment  of 
psychic  phenomena  by  inventing  the  term  "  uncon- 
scious cerebration."     If  the  term  ever  had  a  meaning, 
nobody  has  found  it  out ;  but  it  served  its  purpose 
for  many  years,  and  was  confidently  believed  by  many 
to  be  an  extremely  scientific  explanation  of  things. 
Since  then  the  theory  of  the  "  unconscious  "  has  been 
extended  to   great  lengths.     Some    have  even  held 
that  God,  "  if  there  is  a  God,"  is  himself  unconscious. 
Others  confidently  assert  that  the  lower  animals  act 
without  consciousness,  —  that  all  instinctive  acts  are 
^  devoid    of  intelligence,    etc.      Without   stopping  to 
i    indulge  in  an  unprofitable,  speculative  discussion  of 
the  question,  I  would  ask,  What  does  any  one  know 
•    about  the  consciousness  of  the  lower  animals?    What, 
in  fact,  does  any  one  know  of  the  consciousness  of 
i   his  own  subjective  mind?     Some  have  gone  so  far  as 
to  hold  that  it,  too,  is  unconscious,  and  have  desig- 
i    nated    it   "  the   unconscious    mind."     Others  call   it 
the  "  subconscious  mind,"  hinting  that  its  conscious- 
ness, what  little  there  is  of  it,  is  of  a  very  inferior 
„  quality. 

The  truth  is  that  all  the  phenomena  of  the  subjec- 
tive mind  go  to  prove  that  it  is  the  most  intensely 
conscious  mind  that  we  know  anything  of;  that  it  is 
constantly  alert,  sleeplessly  active,  and  untiringly 
vigilant.  Its  potentially  perfect  memory  has  been 


OTHER  POWERS  OF  THE  MONERON.     283 

made  manifest  in  thousands  of  ways.1  Its  intuitive 
knowledge  of  the  laws  of  its  being  is  a  matter  of  his- 
tory. Its  prodigious  power  of  rapid  mentation,  as 
shown  in  mathematical  prodigies  and  revealed  by 
those  who  have  been  rescued  from  drowning,  is  well 
known  to  every  investigator.  That  it  is,  in  short,  in- 
tensely conscious  of  infinitely  more  than  can  possibly 
be  cognized  by  the  objective  senses,  is  the  most  cer- 
tain and  significant  truth  revealed  by  modern  experi- 
mental psychology.  <J2/»Z"£»-  «-£-— ] 

In  point  of  fact,  all  that  there  is  of  unconscious- 
ness in  the  mind  of  man  is  that  of  his  objective 
mind.  That  is  to  say,  the  objective  mind  is  uncon- 
scious, or  ignorant,  of  the  consciousness  of  the  sub- 
jective mind ;  that  is,  of  the  extent  and  character  of 
that  consciousness.  All  that  we  know  or  can  know 
of  it  is  what  we  can  learn  by  the  study  of  its  phe- 
nomena. By  that  study  we  know  that  the  subjective 
mind  of  man  is  intensely  conscious  of  all  that  has 
ever  been  cognized,  however  superficially,  by  his 
objective  mind;  for  we  know  that  it  is  .endowed  with 
a  memory  that  is  potentially  perfect  We  also  know 
that  it  possesses  the  power  of  intuitional  perception 
of  essential  truth,  differing  in  degree,  but  not  in  kind, 
from  the  instinctive  faculties  of  the  lower  animals. 
We  know  these  things,  not  only  because  phenomena 
have  been  observed  to  occur  spontaneously  which  ex- 
hibit these  faculties  and  powers,  but  because  they  can 
be  experimentally  reproduced  by  well-known  means./ 

These  are  the  facts,  and  these  are  the  only  facts,  by 
which  we  can  determine  the  question  of  conscious- 
ness in  the  instinctive  acts  of  the  lower  animals. 

1  See  "  The  Law  of  Psychic  Phenomena." 


284         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

Starting,  then,  from  this  basis  of  fact,  and  knowing 
that  man  inherited  his  subjective  faculties  from  the 
lower  animals,  we  have  the  right  to  infer  that  the 
justinct  of  the  lower  animals  is  identical  in  kind  with 
the  subjective  mind  of  man. 

This  being  true,  it  follows  that  every  instinctive 
act  of  every  animal,  from  the  moneron  to  man,  is  an 
act  of  subjective  consciousness,  —  a  consciousness 
that  is  infinitely  more  pronounced,  alert,  and  potent 
than  any  of  which  the  objective  intelligence  of  man 
can  conceive  or  can  realize  from  experience. 

We  are  now  prepared  to  realize  how  and  why  it 
is  that  the  potentialities  of  manhood  reside  in  the 
moneron.  We  can  now  understand  how  and  why  it 
is  that  the  transcendent  faculties  of  man  were  inherited 
from  the  lowest  animal  organism.  It  is  simply  be- 
cause those  faculties  existed,  inchoate  but  potential, 
in  that  organism. 

Thus  far  I  have  not  travelled  outside  of  the  general 
doctrines  of  the  evolutionists,  except  for  the  purpose 
of  rinding  valid  reasons  for  accepting  their  funda- 
mental hypothesis  that  man  is  the  product  of  evolu- 
tionary development  from  the  lowest  forms  of  animal 
life.  In  doing  so,  however,  I  have  shown  that  they 
"  builded  better  than  they  knew ;  "  for  in  man's  ear- 
liest earthly  ancestor  there  existed  a  mind  which  any 
man  may  be  proud  to  claim  as  his  heritage,  —  a 
mind  that  in  its  essence  is  divine. 

Whence  came  it?  That  is  the  great  question  in 
which  the  whole  world  is  interested.  From  the  evo- 
lutionary standpoint  there  are  two  hypotheses  to  be 
considered,  and  only  two ;  for  in  undertaking  to  dis- 
cuss the  question  upon  a  purely  scientific  basis,  we 


OTHER  POWERS  OF  THE  MONERON.     285 

have  tacitly  agreed  to  ignore  all  theories  not  based 
upon  observable  phenomena;  and  the  phenomena 
which  we  have  adopted  as  the  basis  of  our  argument 
are  those  of  organic  and  mental  evolution.  This,  of 
course,  precludes  the  discussion  of  such  questions  as 
that  of  special  creations ;  or,  in  fact,  of  any  other 
theory  or  dogma  not  based  upon  the  facts  and 
phenomena  within  the  purview  of  our  special  line  of 
inquiry. 

I  repeat,  therefore,  that,  accepting  the  facts  of 
organic  and  mental  evolution,  there  are  but  two 
hypotheses  to  be  considered  in  dealing  with  the 
question,  What  is  the  source  and  origin  of  life  and 
mind  on  this  planet? 

One  hypothesis  is  that  of  spontaneous  genera- 
tion; and  the  other  is  that  of  divine  inheritance. 
The  first  is  the  atheistic  theory  of  fortuitism,  or 
chance;  the  other  is  the  theistic  theory  of  cause 
and  effect 

The  theory  of  fortuitism  is  very  simple,  and  hence 
it  commends  itself  to  that  very  large  class  of  people 
who,  having  mastered  the  axiom  that  "  The  greatest 
truths  are  the  simplest,"  infer  that  all  simple  state- 
ments are  great  truths. 

I  am  aware  that  it  will  be  vehemently  denied  that 
the  doctrine  of  spontaneous  generation  is  the  doctrine 
of  fortuitism,  or  chance ;  for  either  of  these  words  is 
to  the  atheistic  evolutionist  as  the  red  rag  to  the 
mad  bull.  Nevertheless,  a  simple  analysis  of  the 
doctrine  will  reveal  its  true  character.  The  theory  is 
that  certain  chemical  substances,  when  they  happen 
to  be  in  juxtaposition,  unite  to  form  protoplasm,  and 
that  protoplasm  generates  mind.-  -^.  ^.^:  t.  L 


286         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

That  is  simple  enough,  but  it  is  fortuitism ;  for  if 
it  had  not  so  happened  that  exactly  the  right  kind  of 
chemicals  came  together  in  exactly  the  right  propor- 
tions, the  organic  world  would  still  have  been  literally 
"  without  form  and  void."  There  would  have  been 
no  protoplasm,  and  hence  no  "  basis  of  life."  The 
only  escape  from  this  logical  dilemma  would  be  by 
the  admission,  either  that  protoplasm  was  a  special 
creation,  or  that  it  was  the  result  of  a  law  of  organic 
evolutionary  development,  of  which  the  formation  of 
protoplasm  was  to  be  the  first  grand  step  in  a  phy- 
logenetic  series  culminating  in  man.  But  as  this 
would  approach  dangerously  near  the  teleological 
domain  they  cannot  be  expected  to  make  any  such 
admission ;  especially  since  the  Darwinian  philos- 
ophers hold  that  all  subsequent  steps  in  evolution  are 
due  to  chance.  Their  theory  of  evolution  would 
lack  coherence  if  they  hesitated  to  refer  the  first  step 
in  the  process  to  the  same  convenient  and  "  simple  " 
hypothesis. 

All  this,  however,  is  a  question  of  very  small 
importance  when  compared  with  the  main  issue, 
which,  in  plain  language,  is  this :  — 

Is  primordial  slime  endowed  with  the  faculty  of 
generating  a  godlike  mind  ? 

Or,  to  put  it  within  the  limits  of  their  own  estimate 
of  the  mind  of  the  primordial  germ,  Is  primitive 
slime  endowed  with  the  faculty  of  generating  a  mind 
invested,  ab  initio,  with  the  potentialities  of  manhood? 

It  must  now  be  remembered  that  the  Darwinians 
have  not  produced  one  fact  that  even  suggests  the 
possibility  that  life  and  mind  were  thus  spontaneously 
generated.  On  the  contrary,  their  ablest  scientists 


OTHER  POWERS  OF  THE  MONERON.     287 

are  compelled  to  admit  that  their  most  careful  and 
painstaking  experiments  have  failed  to  confirm  the 
hypothesis.  And  Haeckel  himself  is  compelled  to 
declare  that  the  theory  is  adopted  simply  because 
"  this  assumption  is  required  by  the  demand  of  the 
human  understanding  for  causality;"  i.  e.  the  athe- 
istic understanding.  In  other  words,  he  virtually 
confesses  that  he  is  compelled  to  set  up  a  hypothesis 
that  has  not  one  fact  to  sustain  it,  in  order  to  escape 
the  dire  alternative  of  believing  —  to  use  his  own 
language  —  in  a  "  supernatural  miracle." 

His  logical  attitude  is  this :  he  begs  the  question, 
to  start  with,  by  assuming  to  decide,  confessedly 
without  evidence,  the  very  question  in  dispute ;  and 
then  offers  as  an  excuse  another  assumption,  also 
without  evidence  or  reason,  that  is  equally  disputable 
and  in  dispute.  That  is  to  say,  he  assumes  to  decide 
the  main  question,  offhand,  by  declaring  spontaneous 
generation  to  be  the  origin  of  life ;  and  then  attempts 
to  clinch  his  first  assumption  by  assuming  any  other 
theory  to  be  gross  superstition,  in  that  it  involves  a 
"  belief  in  a  supernatural  miracle." 

Logicians  are  tolerably  familiar  with  the  petitio 
principii,  and  have  recognized  several  different 
qualities  and  degrees,  such  as  the  "  direct "  and  the 
"  indirect,"  the  "  disguised"  and  the  "  patent;  "  but 
this  appears  to  belong  to  a  new  species.  Its  effi- 
ciency as  a  polemical  weapon  consists  in  the  fact 
that  the  second  assumption  refers  back  to  the  first, 
and  is  held  in  terrorem  over  the  heads  of  those  who 
do  not  admit  the  first  to  be  true. 

I  repeat,  therefore,  that  the  two  vital  questions  at 
issue  between  atheistic  and  theistic  evolutionists  are 


288         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

the  ones  that  Professor  Haeckel  has  thus  summarily 
decided. 

The  first  is,  What  is  the  origin  of  mind  and  organic 
life?  Did  they  originate  by  spontaneous  generation, 
or  are  they  a  divine  heritage  ? 

The  second  is,  If  we  find  evidence  of  their  divine 
origin,  does  that  involve  a  belief  in  a  miracle? 

And  these  are  the  questions  which  we  will  now 
proceed  to  discuss. 


CHAPTER  V. 

NATURAL  LAW  VS.   "SUPERNATURAL  MIRACLE." 

One  of  the  Atheistic  Strongholds.  —  Words  and  Phrases  supposed 
to  be  Contumelious.  —  A  Method  of  Compelling  the  Accep- 
tance of  "  Scientific"  Absurdities.  —  Potential  Scare-Words,  e.  g. 
Haeckel's  "  Supernatural  Miracle."  —  His  Estimate  of  Deific 
Limitations.  —  The  Question  raised.  —  Is  a  Miracle  Necessary 
to  escape  Spontaneous  Generation?  —  Miracle  defined.  —  Facts 
of  Evolution  exclude  Miracle.  —  Everything  happens  in  Regular 
Order,  therefore  not  Miraculous.  —  To  suppose  Miracle  to  be 
Necessary  is  to  prescribe  Limitations  to  Divine  Intelligence.— 
The  Established  Order  of  Nature  the  Antithesis  of  Miracle. — 
Beginning  of  Life  necessarily  in  the  Established  Order.  —  Genera- 
tion of  Mind  from  Inorganic  Matter  would  require  a  Miracle.  — 
We  must  assume  Natural  Law  to  prevail. 

ONE  of  the  strongholds  of  the  atheistic  fraternity, 
considered  as  a  proselyting  agency,  consists 
in  their  ability  and  their  propensity  to  fright  the 
souls  of  fearful  adversaries  by  the  employment  of 
certain  stock  words  and  phrases.  Experience  has 
taught  them  that  there  is  a  very  large  and  growing 
class  of  people  who  desire  above  all  things  to  be 
considered  "  scientific."  They  have  also  discovered 
that  this  class  can  be  stampeded  into  a  belief  in 
almost  any  kind  of  absurdity  if  it  bears  a  "  scientific  " 
label,  or  if  they  are  told  that  it  is  "unscientific" 
to  believe  otherwise.  "Superstition"  and  "  super- 
natural "  are  also  very  potent  scare-words,  and 
many  a  poor,  timid,  would-be  scientist  has  been 
driven  to  cover  by  being  told  that  if  he  believes  in 

19 


2QO         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

God  he  is  superstitious;  and  that  if  he  presumes  to 
believe  in  an  intelligent  antecedent  cause  of  the  phe- 
nomena of  mind,  he  is  a  believer  in  the  "  super- 
natural." "  Miracle  "  is  another  word  of  wonderful 
potency  in  the  vocabulary  of  atheistic  proselytism; 
and  when  it  is  reinforced  by  prefixing  the  word 
"  supernatural,"  it  is  expected  to  be  well-nigh 
irresistible. 

Hence  it  was  that  Professor  Haeckel  did  not  neg- 
lect to  close  his  so-called  argument  for  spontaneous 
generation  with  the  usual  formula,  which,  reduced  to 
its  simplest  terms,  is  this:  "  If  you  don't  believe  in 
spontaneous  generation,  you  have  got  to  believe  in  a 
supernatural  miracle." 

This,  of  course,  is  equivalent  to  a  declaration  that, 
even  supposing  an  intelligent  Deity  to  exist,  he  could 
not  be  the  cause  of  the  phenomena  of  life  without 
violating  or  transcending  a  law  of  nature.  To  say 
that  this  is  another  of  the  pure  assumptions  of 
atheism,  is  putting  it  in  the  mildest  possible  terms. 
This,  again,  is  the  very  question  at  issue  between 
the  atheistic  and  the  theistic  evolutionist:  Is  it 
necessary  to  presuppose  a  "  supernatural  miracle  " 
as  the  only  alternative  to  a  belief  in  spontaneous 
generation? 

In  order  to  answer  that  question,  we  must  first 
define  the  word  "  miracle."  Webster's  definition  is, 
"  An  event  or  effect  contrary  to  the  established  con- 
stitution and  course  of  things,  or  a  deviation  from 
the  known  laws  of  nature ;  a  supernatural  event." 

The  definition  of  the  Standard  Dictionary  is  as 
follows:  "2.  Theol.  An  event  in  the  natural  world, 
but  out  of  its  established  order,  and  possible  only  by 


NATURAL  LAW  vs.  MIRACLE.  29 1 

the  intervention  and  exertion  of  divine  power;  a 
supernatural  event." 

Now,  postulating,  for  the  time  being,  the  existence 
of  an  intelligent  Deity,  a  Great  First  Cause  of  all 
things,  what  would  it  be  necessary  to  prove  in  order 
to  bring  the  phenomena  of  life,  as  shown  in  the 
monera,  within  the  domain  of  the  supernatural  ? 

Three  things  are  necessary,  namely:  — 

1.  It  must  be  shown  that  those  phenomena  are 
"  events  in  the  natural  world." 

2.  That  they  are  "  out  of  the  established  order." 

3.  That  they  were  "  possible  only  by  the  inter- 
vention and  exertion  of  divine  power." 

It  will  be  seen  at  a  glance  that  but  one  of  the  con- 
ditions is  fulfilled ;  namely,  the  beginning  of  life,  as 
shown  in  the  moneron,  was  "  an  event  in  the  natural 
world."  But  it  would  be  difficult  to  show  that  it  was 
"  out  of  the  established  order."  Indeed,  it  would  be 
difficult  to  show  that  the  beginning  of  anything  was 
out  of  the  established  order.  This  alone  takes  the 
event  out  of  the  category  of  miracle,  no  matter  what 
the  theory  of  causation  may  be ;  for  if  there  is  any 
event  in  any  series  that  is,  ex  necessitate,  in  its  estab- 
lished order,  it  is  the  initial  event. 

Again,  it  would  be  found  quite  difficult  to  show 
that,  under  the  theistic  hypothesis,  the  beginning  of 
life  was  "  possible  only  by  the  intervention  and  exer- 
tion of  divine  power." 

"  Intervention  "  means  "  the  act  of  intervening  or 
coming  between ;  the  state  of  being  interposed ;  in- 
terposition."1 The  "intervention"  and  "exertion 
of  divine  power"  in  endowing  the  moneron  with 
1  Standard  Dictionary. 


292         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

organic  life,  would  therefore  be  a  special  act  of 
creation ;  and,  in  order  to  show  that  it  was  miracu- 
lous, it  must  be  shown  that  it  was  possible  only  by 
an  act  of  special  creation,  "  out  of  the  established 
order."  In  other  words,  it  would  be  necessary  to 
show  that  divine  power  is  unequal  to  the  task  of 
establishing  a  law  of  evolutionary  development,  in 
pursuance  of  which  organic  life  could  have  a  begin- 
ning or  a  progressive  development  without  the  neces- 
sity of  an  occasional  miracle  to  correct  that  wherein 
the  original  plan  was  defective. 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  the  element  of  miracle,  or 
special  creation,  is  necessarily  absent:  first,  because 
the  beginning  of  life  could  not  have  been  "  out  of 
the  established  order ;  "  secondly,  because  a  miracle 
within  the  established  order  of  nature  is  a  contra- 
diction in  terms ;  and,  thirdly,  because  the  alleged 
necessity  for  a  miracle  implies  a  being  of  deficient 
intelligence  and  limited  powers. 

The  established  order  of  development  is  the  very 
antithesis  of  miracle ;  and  the  latter  can  be  assumed 
only  when  it  is  shown  that  something  has  been 
created  out  of  that  order.  For  instance,  if  it  could 
be  shown  that  a  marsupial  or  a  monkey  or  an 
agnostic  was  created  first  or  out  of  its  order,  a 
miracle  might  be  posited  and  its  wisdom  questioned. 
But  the  natural,  or  established,  order  of  development 
proclaims  the  reign  of  intelligence  and  law. 

The  position  of  the  atheistic  evolutionist  may 
therefore  be  restated  as  follows:  — 

Organic  life,  mind,  and  intelligence,  with  all  their 
implications  and  potentialities,  were  spontaneously 
generated  from  inorganic  matter;  or  else  they  were 


NATURAL   LAW  vs.   MIRACLE.  293 

specially  created  by  a  being  of  inferior  intelligence 
and  limited  powers,  by  means  of  a  "  supernatural 
miracle." 

I  have  already  shown  that  the  agnostics  are  con- 
fessedly without  facts  that  point  in  the  direction  of 
spontaneous  generation  ;  and  that  they  are  confessedly 
compelled  by  necessity  to  assume  that  hypothe- 
sis as  the  only  logical  avenue  of  escape  from  the 
acknowledgment  of  the  existence  of  an  intelligent 
cause  of  the  phenomena  of  life  and  mind.  But,  by 
what  logical  right  they  assume  that  an  intelligent 
cause  of  those  phenomena  is  necessarily  a  being  of 
limited  intelligence,  does  not  appear  from  their 
writings.  We  must  therefore  infer  that  that  con- 
clusion is  also  a  pure  assumption,  and  one  that  is 
unrelieved  by  the  mitigating  excuse  of  necessity. 

There  is,  in  fact,  no  more  logical  necessity  for  sup- 
posing a  miracle  to  be  necessary  in  order  to  endow 
protoplasm  with  life  and  mind  under  the  theistic 
hypothesis,  than  there  is  for  classing  spontaneous 
generation  as  a  supernatural  process.  Nor  as  much ; 
for  the  latter  would  be  an  event  clearly  "  out  of  the 
natural  order,"  so  far  as  man  is  able  to  judge  from 
any  facts  in  his  possession.  That  is  to  say,  we  know 
of  no  facts  which  give  us  a  right  to  suppose  that  or- 
ganic life  and  mind  can  have  their  origin  in  inorganic 
matter.  But  the  universe  is  full  of  evidence  that 
mind  is  only  acquired  by  inheritance  from  an  ante- 
cedent mind  endowed  with  attributes  and  powers 
identical  in  kind  with  those  inherited.  We  also  know 
that  there  is  no  miracle  in  inheritance.  And  we 
have  every  right  to  suppose,  judging  by  all  the  facts 
in  our  possession,  that  there  is  no  antecedent  mind 


294        THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

in  inorganic  matter  from  which  the  mental  organism 
of  the  moneron  could  have  been  inherited. 

There  is,  therefore,  no  a  priori  reason  for  positing 
a  miracle  on  the  assumption  of  an  antecedent  mind 
force  or  energy  in  the  universe  from  which  the  mone- 
ron derived  its  peculiar  powers.  On  the  contrary, 
we  must  suppose  that  the  advent  of  mind  upon  this 
planet  was  in  pursuance  of  a  natural  law,  at  least 
until  evidence  to  the  contrary  is  found  of  sufficient 
weight  to  destroy  our  confidence  in  the  constancy  of 
nature.  In  the  ensuing  chapters  of  this  book  we 
will  institute  a  quest  for  that  law,  "  if  haply  we  may 
feel  after  it,  and  find  it,"  though,  literally,  "  it  is  not 
far  from  each  one  of  us." 


CHAPTER  VI. 

THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  HEREDITY. 

Facts  drawn  from  the  History  of  Organic  Evolution.  —  The  Doctrine 
of  Heredity. —  Its  Biological  Definition.  —  The  Authority  of 
Darwin,  Huxley,  and  Haeckel.  —  The  Common  Ground  upon 
which  Atheism  and  Theism  can  stand.  —  The  Acknowledged 
Facts  of  Heredity.  —  The  Necessary  Presumptions. —  Something 
to  inherit.  —  Something  from  which  to  inherit.  —  The  Character 
of  the  Inheritance.  —  Must  exist  actually  or  potentially  in  the 
Ancestor.  —  May  differ  in  Degree,  but  not  in  Kind.  —  Man 
inherits  from  his  Lower  Ancestry  back  to  the  Moneron.  — 
Whence  the  Intelligence  of  the  Moneron?  —  The  Law  of  Hered- 
ity presupposes  an  Ancestor. —  Atheism  says,  "This  is  an 
Exception  to  the  General  Law."  —  Theism  replies  that  Laws  of 
Nature  do  not  admit  of  Exceptions.  —  The  Issue  systematically 
examined. — The  Necessity  of  going  back  to  the  Beginning  of 
Organic  Life.  —  (i)  The  Issue:  Spontaneous  Generation  or 
Inheritance.  —  (2)  The  Facts  agreed  upon  :  (a)  Potentials  of 
Manhood  in  the  Moneron  —  (b)  Faculties  acquired  only  by  In- 
heritance —  (c)  Antecedent  Intelligence  presupposed  —  (d)  Fail- 
ure of  Experimental  Attempts  to  generate  Life  from  Inorganic 
Matter  —  (e)  Monera  Destitute  of  Structural  Organism  — 
(f)  Nevertheless  endowed  with  a  Mind  —  (g)  Developed  into  a 
Structural  Organism  —  (h)  Moneron's  Mind  antedated  its  Physi- 
cal Organism.  — 3.  What  Facts  support  Theory  of  Spontaneous 
Generation  ?  —  Confessedly  all  Facts  are  against  it.  —  Experi- 
mental Failures.  —  Quality  of  Evidence  considered.  —  Negative 
Evidence  not  the  Best.  —  But  a  Hypothesis  without  one  Fact  to 
support  it  is  a  Logical  Absurdity. —  Hypothesis  Valid  only  when 
sustained  by  all  Facts.  —  Otherwise  no  Constancy  in  Nature.  — 
Atheistic  Hypothesis  Unique  — Has  no  Parallel  in  Bald,  Unrea- 
soning Assumption.  —  Reasons  for  Atheist's  Attitude.  —  Doctrine 
of  Evolution  disproved  Theory  of  Special  Creations.  —  Heiice 


296        THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

he  "said  in  his  Heart,  There  is  no  God.  " — Hence  Necessity  for 
inventing  a  Hypothesis.  —  Paralleled  only  by  that  of  Topsy.  — 
Haeckel's  Statement  of  the  Issue. — Spontaneous  Generation  or 
"  Supernatural  Miracle."  —  Equivalent  to  Spontaneous  Generation 
or  Divine  Agency. — The  Latter  the  Real  Issue.  —  No  Other 
Possible.  —  One  is  True  and  the  Other  False. — Logical  Condi- 
tions considered.  —  Facts  in  Support  of  Hereditary  Hypothesis 
next  in  Order.  • 

HAVING  failed  to  find  either  facts,  phenomena, 
or  valid  reasons  for  the  assumptions  of  athe- 
ism in  regard  to  the  origin  of  life,  let  us  briefly 
examine  the  question  from  the  theistic  point  of  view, 
and  see  what  facts  there  are  to  sustain  the  belief  that 
the  stream  of  life  and  mind  has  a  source  higher  than 
the  insensate  earth. 

In  making  this  inquiry  I  shall  continue  to  be 
guided  by  facts  as  they  appear  in  the  history  of 
evolution,  and  I  shall  draw  upon  the  same  sources  of 
information  that  I  have  thus  far  drawn  upon,  namely, 
the  great  masters  of  biological  science.  I  shall  also 
be  guided  very  largely  by  their  general  conclusions. 
In  fact,  I  shall  carry  those  conclusions  further  than 
they  have  carried  them.  But  I  shall  not  deviate  from 
the  line  of  direction  which  they  have  indicated. 

The  particular  doctrine  to  which  I  shall  first  invite 
attention  is  that  of  heredity.  Heredity,  in  a  gen- 
eral sense,  is  defined  as  the  transmission  of  physical 
or  mental  peculiarities,  qualities,  etc.,  from  parent  to 
offspring.  In  the  biological  sense,  it  is  defined  as 
"  the  tendency  manifested  by  one  organism  to  de- 
velop in  the  likeness  of  a  progenitor."  1 

These  are  general  definitions  with  which  everybody 
is  familiar.  The  doctrine  as  applied  to  biogeny, 

1  Standard  Dictionary. 


THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  HEREDITY.       297 

however,  requires  a  more  specific  statement.  In  the 
language  of  Darwin,  it  is  "  that  all  the  innumerable 
species,  genera,  and  families  of  organic  beings  with 
which  the  world  is  peopled  have  all  descended,  each 
within  its  own  class  or  group,  from  common  parents."  1 

And,  in  view  of  the  facts  of  geology,  it  follows  that 
all  living  plants  and  animals  "  are  the  lineal  descen- 
dants of  those  which  lived  long  before  the  Silurian 
epoch."2 

"  It  is  an  obvious  consequence  of  this  theory  of 
descent,"  says  Huxley,  "...  that  all  plants  and 
animals,  however  different  they  may  now  be,  must, 
at  one  time  or  other,  have  been  connected  by  direct 
or  indirect  intermediate  gradations,  and  that  the  ap- 
pearance of  isolation  presented  by  various  groups  of 
organic  beings  must  be  unreal."  3 

More  specifically  still,  Professor  Haeckel,  as  we  have 
already  seen,  emphasizes  the  doctrine  of  heredity, 
and  traces  the  line  of  descent  back,  through  twenty- 
two  gradients,  from  man  to  the  monera.4  That 
Haeckel  is  a  standard  authority  among  atheistic  evo- 
lutionists is  a  matter  of  current  knowledge  among 
scientific  men  everywhere.  Darwin  himself  takes 
particular  pains  to  indorse  his  views  in  general  and 
in  particular.  Speaking  of  one  of  Professor  Haeckel's 
works  on  the  genealogy  of  man,  Mr.  Darwin  has 
this  to  say :  — 

"  If  this  work  had  appeared  before  my  essay  had  been 
written,  I  should  probably  never  have  completed  it.  Al- 

1  Origin  of  Species,  ed.  i.  p.  457. 

2  Op.  cit.  p.  458. 

8  Darwiniana,  p.  233. 

4  See  "  The  Evolution  of  Man.' 


298        THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

most  all  the  conclusions  at  which  I  have  arrived  I  find  con- 
firmed by  this  naturalist,  whose  knowledge  on  many  points 
is  much  fuller  than  mine."1 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  if  there  is  any  one  point 
upon  which  the  master  minds  of  biogenetic  science 
are  in  complete  harmony,  it  is  in  subscribing  to  the 
proposition  that  man  inherited  his  faculties  from  the 
lower  animals,  beginning  with  the  lowest  form  of 
animal  life, — the  monera.  A  corollary  of  this,  to 
which  they  all  subscribe,  is  that  the  potentialities 
of  manhood  reside  in  the  lowest  form  of  animal 
life. 

Now,  it  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  this  conclusion 
is  the  most  important  result  of  the  study  of  the  facts 
of  organic  evolution.  From  every  point  of  view  it 
is  the  grand  result;  for  everything  else  of  importance 
is  included,  and  atheistic  and  theistic  evolutionists 
can  meet  on  this  common  ground,  not  of  belief,  but 
of  knowledge.  It  matters  not  how  devious  or  diver- 
gent the  paths  by  which  they  have  reached  the  goal, 
science  and  religion  have  at  last  found  a  basis  of  at 
least  temporary  reconciliation. 

It  is  obvious  that  it  must  have  been  a  potent 
agency  that  was  capable  of  bringing  atheism  and 
theism  into  harmonious  relations.  That  agency  could 
have  been  nothing  less  potent  than  truth.  And  the 
process  by  which  that  truth  was  reached  was  that  of 
inductive  reasoning,  — reasoning  from  the  observable 
facts  and  phenomena  of  nature. 

It  was  thus  that  atheism  and  theism  alike  dis- 
covered that  there  is  not  one  fact  in  nature  that 

1  Descent  of  Man,  Introduction,  p.  3 


THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  HEREDITY.       299 

points   to    any   other   possible    means    of  acquiring 
mental  faculties  than  that  of  inheritance. 

Now,  let  us  see  what  is  necessarily  presupposed  in 
the  doctrine  of  heredity. 

First,  then,  it  presupposes  something  to  inherit; 
and  secondly,  it  presupposes  an  ancestor  from  which 
that  something  is  inherited.  Obviously  nothing  can 
be  inherited  that  does  not  exist,  actually  or  po- 
tentially; and  nothing  can  be  inherited  unless  there 
is  an  existent  entity  from  which  to  derive  the  inher- 
itance. These  are  self-evident  propositions ;  and 
they  may  be  reduced  to  one  fundamental  proposition 
as  follows :  — 

An  inherited  faculty  presupposes  an  antecedent  en- 
tity endowed  with  a  mind  in  which  the  identical 
faculty  acttially  or  potentially  exists. 

The  faculty  may  be  different  in  degree,  but  not  in 
kind.  It  may  be  greater  or  smaller,  as  phenomenally 
manifested  in  the  offspring,  than  it  was  in  the  parent; 
but  it  must  be  identical  in  kind.  Thus,  a  child  may 
exhibit  wonderful  faculties  in  which  the  parent  may 
seem  totally  deficient;  but  it  is  self-evident  that  the 
same  faculties  existed  potentially  in  the  parent.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  parent  may  have  faculties  largely 
developed  in  which  the  child  may  seem  totally  defi- 
cient; but  that  they  exist  potentially  in  the  child 
is  a  proposition  that  no  sane  person  can  or  will 
gainsay. 

These  are  elementary  principles  in  the  doctrine  of 
heredity;  and  that  they  apply  with  equal  force  to 
the  phylogenetic  series,  from  the  moneron  to  man, 
is  the  elementary  proposition  of  the  theory  of  evolu- 
tion. Eliminate  them  from  the  doctrine  of  evolution, 


300         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

and  the  whole  fabric  falls  to  pieces  of  its  own  weight. 
If  the  doctrine  of  heredity  fails,  then  fails  the  whole 
theory  of  progressive  development  of  animal  life, 
and  the  world  is  again  plunged  into  the  dark  and 
dismal  realms  of  superstition. 

Now,  let  us  apply  the  doctrine  of  heredity  to  the 
solution  of  the  question  of  the  origin  of  life.  In 
other  words,  let  us  carry  the  principle  of  heredity  to 
its  legitimate  conclusion.  In  doing  so,  we  will  bear 
in  mind  the  promise  not  to  deviate  one  hair's  breadth 
from  the  line  of  direction  which  atheism  has  indicated 
as  the  one  leading  to  ultimate  truth,  that  is,  to  the 
ultimate  solution  of  the  problem  of  the  origin  of  life 
and  mind  on  this  planet. 

Beginning  with  man,  therefore,  and  going  back 
through  the  phylogenetic  series  to  the  moneron, 
atheism  and  theism  will  travel  along  harmoniously 
together,  each  subscribing  to  the  propositions  (i) 
that  all  faculties  of  mind  are  acquired  by  inher- 
itance, and  (2)  that  an  inherited  faculty  presup- 
poses an  antecedent  entity  endowed  with  a  mind  in 
which  the  identical  faculty  actually  or  potentially 
exists. 

When  the  moneron  is  reached,  however,  the  atheist 
pauses,  and  protests  against  going  any  further  in  that 
particular  direction.  He  has  discovered  what  no 
scientist  has  ever  found  before,  and  what  none  but 
an  atheistic  scientist  is  capable  of  discovering,  namely, 
an  exception  to  a  law  of  nature.  The  law  of  heredity 
is  no  longer  suited  to  his  purpose.  It  works  the 
wrong  way.  Its  implications  are  no  longer  atheistic; 
and  he  abandons  it  forever. 

The  theistic  evolutionist,  on  the  other  hand,  finds 


THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  HEREDITY.      301 

in  the  moneron  no  exception  to  any  law  of  nature 
with  which  he  is  acquainted.  On  the  contrary,  he 
finds  in  that  little  animal  confirmation  strong  as 
proofs  of  Holy  Writ  that  the  law  of  heredity  holds  as 
good  at  the  beginning  of  organic  life  as  it  does  at 
every  subsequent  stage.  That  is  to  say,  he  sees  the 
same  necessity  for  the  presupposition  of  a  mind 
antecedent  to  the  moneron,  —  a  mind  endowed  with 
the  same  attributes  and  powers,  differing  only  in 
degree,  that  he  finds  inherent  in  that  lowest  form  of 
animal  life. 

Now,  let  us  examine  a  little  more  systematically 
the  logical  attitude,  respectively,  of  the  atheistic  and 
the  theistic  evolutionist,  in  regard  to  this  the  most 
important  question  raised  by  the  facts  of  organic 
evolution. 

It  must  be  remembered,  to  begin  with,  that  each  of 
the  two  contending  parties  professes  to  be  conducting 
the  examination  by  the  process  of  induction.  Each 
professes  to  ignore  all  speculative  philosophy  bearing 
upon  the  subject,  and  to  be  guided  solely  by  the 
facts  and  observable  phenomena.  And  each  has 
recognized  the  fact  that  it  is  at  the  very  beginning  of 
organic  life  in  this  world  that  we  must  find,  if  any- 
where, tangible  evidences  as  to  its  origin.  This  is  in 
accordance  with  the  elementary  principle  of  all  pro- 
cesses of  rational  investigation.  It  is  recognized  by 
every  true  scientist  who  seeks  to  interpret  correctly 
the  laws  of  nature.  It  is  recognized  by  every  lawyer 
who  seeks  to  interpret  the  statutes  of  his  country. 
Blackstone  lays  particular  stress  upon  this  principle 
as  the  only  infallible  guide  to  the  correct  interpreta- 
tion of  ambiguous  statutes.  "  If  the  words  are  am- 


302         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

biguous,"  says  this  greatest  of  English  law  writers 
(I  quote  from  memory),  "  examine  the  context,"  and 
then  the  "  subject-matter."  If  it  is  still  ambiguous, 
consider  the  "  reason  and  spirit  of  the  law."  In 
doing  the  latter,  he  lays  down  this  simple  rule: 
Consider  "  the  old  law,  the  mischief,  and  the  remedy." 
That  is  to  say,  first  find  what  the  old  law  was; 
secondly,  what  was  the  "  mischief"  or  evil  in  the  old 
law  that  required  a  remedy;  and,  thirdly,  what  was 
the  remedy  devised  by  the  new  law.  In  other  words, 
we  must  go  back  to  the  very  beginning  if  we  would 
find  facts  that  will  enable  us  to  interpret  correctly  a 
law  either  of  God  or  of  man.  It  is  this  principle  that 
every  true  lawyer  applies  to  the  whole  system  of 
jurisprudence  under  which  he  practises.  It  is  this 
principle  that  every  true  scientist  applies  to  the 
investigation  of  every  problem  of  nature.  It  is  this 
principle  that  I  have  sought  to  apply  to  the  investi- 
gation of  the  question,  What  is  the  origin  of  life  on 
this  planet? 

I  repeat,  therefore,  that  if  there  are  existent  facts 
that  bear  directly  upon  the  question  of  the  origin  of 
life,  we  must  look  for  them  at  the  beginning  of  life. 

We  will  now  group  the  facts  and  arguments  bearing 
upon  this  question  in  the  following  order:  (i)  The 
issue  between  atheism  and  theism ;  (2)  The  facts 
agreed  upon ;  (3)  The  facts  in  support  of  atheism ; 
(4)  The  facts  in  support  of  theism. 

The  issue  between  the  atheistic  and  the  theistic 
evolutionist  is  this:  the  former  holds  that  life  and 
mind  originated  by  spontaneous  generation  from  inor- 
ganic matter;  the  latter  holds  that  life  and  mind  were 
acquired  by  inheritance  from  an  omniscient  mind. 


THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  HEREDITY.       303 

The  facts  and  principles  tacitly  agreed  upon  by 
both  parties  are  substantially  the  following :  — 

First,  that  in  the  mind  of  the  moneron  reside  the 
potentialities  of  the  mental  faculties  of  manhood. 

Secondly,  that  in  the  phylogenetic  history  of 
organic  life  there  is  no  instance  of  the  acquisition  of 
mental  faculties  in  any  other  way  than  by  inheritance. 

Thirdly,  that  an  inherited  faculty  necessarily  pre- 
supposes an  antecedent  intelligence  identical  in  kind. 

Fourthly,  that  all  experimental  attempts  to  generate 
organic  life  from  inorganic  compounds  have  utterly 
failed. 

Fifthly,  that  the  moneron  consists  of  a  mass  of 
absolutely  undifferentiated,  structureless  plasson  or 
primitive  slime. 

Sixthly,  that  it  is,  nevertheless,  endowed  with  a 
mind  organism,  and  that  it  performs  all  the  functions 
and  exhibits  all  the  essential  phenomena  of  organic 
life,  namely,  sensation,  movement,  nutrition,  and 
reproduction  ;  all  this  being  antecedent  to,  and  inde- 
pendent of,  reason,  experience,  or  instruction. 

Seventhly,  that  this  mental  energy  thus  resident 
within  the  moneron  is  the  power  which  caused  its 
own  development  from  an  undifferentiated  mass  of 
plasson  to  the  differentiated  or  nucleated  amoeba ;  thus 
taking  the  first  forward  step  in  the  process  of  organic 
evolution. 

Eighthly,  that  the  mind  of  the  moneron  antedated 
its  physical  organism,  and  was,  as  a  rratter  of  fact, 
the  antecedent  cause  of  physical  organism. 

These  are  facts  which  will  not  be  denied  by  either 
atheist  or  theist.  They  are  either  specifically  or 
tacitly  affirmed  by  both ;  and  they  are  essential  to 


304         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

both,  paradoxical  as  it  may  seem.  They  are.essential 
to  the  atheistic  evolutionist  because  they  are  essential 
to  the  general  hypothesis  of  evolution.  They  are 
essential  to  the  theistic  evolutionist  for  the  same 
reason,  and  also  because  they  are  essential  to  the 
hypothesis  of  theism. 

It  is  now  in  order  to  inquire  what  facts  there  are 
to  sustain  the  theory  of  spontaneous  generation. 
The  reader  has  already  anticipated  the  answer. 
There  is  not  one  fact  that  points  in  that  direction. 
This  I  have  hereinbefore  pointed  out  and  empha- 
sized by  quotations  from  Professor  Haeckel's  works, 
in  which  he  confesses  that  the  theory  cannot  be 
verified,  but  consoles  himself  by  the  declaration 
that  it  cannot  be  disproved.  All  experimental  fail- 
ures to  develop  or  generate  organic  life  from  inor- 
ganic matter  count  for  nothing  in  his  mind.  Candor 
compels  the  admission  that  it  is  not  the  best  quality 
of  evidence.  It  is  always  difficult  and  often  impos- 
sible to  prove  a  negative.  But  it  must  also  be  re- 
membered that,  logically,  no  one  is  bound  to  prove 
a  negative  until  the  side  holding  the  affirmative  has 
made  at  least  a.  prim  a  facie  case.  In  this  instance 
not  only  has  this  not  been  done,  but,  confessedly,  it 
cannot  be  done. 

The  evidence  for  spontaneous  generation,  there- 
fore, may  be  set  down  as  absolutely  less  than  no 
evidence  at  all ;  for  the  only  facts  bearing  upon  the 
case  are  against  the  hypothesis.  I  submit,  therefore, 
that,  considered  as  a  scientific  conclusion  based 
upon  inductive  processes  of  reasoning,  the  hypothesis 
of  spontaneous  generation  is  simply  a  logical  ab- 
surdity. Induction  presupposes  at  least  one  fact 


THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  HEREDITY.       305 

pointing  in  the  direction  indicated  by  the  hypothet- 
ical conclusion. 

Moreover,  an  axiom  recognized  by  every  logician 
and  by  every  scientist  worthy  of  the  name,  is  that,  if 
a  hypothesis  is  not  sustained  by  all  the  facts  bearing 
upon  the  question,  it  is  necessarily  wrong.  This  axiom 
is  founded  upon  two  fundamental  truths:  namely, 
(i)  that  no  fact  in  all  this  universe  is  inconsistent 
with  any  other  fact;  and  (2)  there  are  no  excep- 
tional cases  in  the  operation  of  nature's  laws.  These 
may_all  be  condensed  into  that  most  fundamental 
and  important  of  all  scientific  truths,  namely,  that 
which  is  affirmative  of  the  constancy  of  nature. 

The  hypothesis  of  spontaneous  generation  is, 
therefore,  in  absolute  and  unqualified  derogation  of 
each  and  all  of  these  fundamental  axioms.  Consid- 
ered, therefore,  as  a  proposition  emanating  from  a 
body  of  scientists  who  are  constantly  proclaiming 
their  devotion  to  the  principles  of  induction,  it  must 
be  considered  unique,  to  say  the  least;  for,  if  it  has 
ever  been  paralleled  for  bald  assumption  without  the 
shadow  of  a  shade  of  evidence,  history  has  not  re- 
corded the  fact. 

Now,  there  must  have  existed  some  overwhelming 
logical  necessity  for  such  a  flagrant  violation  of  all 
the  principles  that  are  supposed  to  prevail  in  the 
scientific  investigation  of  the  phenomena  of  nature. 
It  will  be  recalled  that  Professor  Haeckel  confessed 
that  the  hypothesis  of  spontaneous  generation  was  a 
mere  assumption,  and  that  it  was  prompted  by  neces- 
sity. A  few  words  will  explain  this  necessity,  and 
how  it  arose. 

It  will  be  remembered  that,  when  the  doctrine  of 
20 


306         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

organic  evolution  was  first  promulgated,  it  was  re- 
garded as  an  atheistic  science.  It  was  natural  that 
it  should  be  so  regarded,  since  it  was  promulgated 
by  atheists;  but  especially  for  the  reason  that  the 
theory  substituted  progressive  development  for  the 
old  doctrine  of  special  creations  of  genera  and  species 
in  the  organic  world.  Having  succeeded  in  dis- 
proving the  latter  doctrine,  the  atheistic  scientists 
imagined  that  they  had  "  eliminated  God  from  the 
universe."  That  is  to  say,  having  discovered  prox- 
imate causes  (causa  efficientes)  for  a  great  many 
phenomena  which  had  before  been  supposed  to  be 
due  to  miraculous  intervention,  they  jumped  to  the 
conclusion  that  there  was  no  necessity  for  final  or 
purposive  causes  (causes finales}  for  anything.  Hence 
they  determined  either  to  find  a  "mechanical  cause" 
(Haeckel)  for  every  phenomenon  or  invent  one  out 
of  hand.  Heredity  served  their  purpose  admirably 
until  they  reached  the  very  beginning  of  animal  life. 
Here  was  the  crucial  point,  here  the  parting  of  the 
ways.  If  they  carried  the  doctrine  of  heredity  to  its 
legitimate  conclusion,  it  presupposed  an  intelligence 
antecedent  to  the  monera;  and  that  intelligence,  of 
course,  could  be  none  other  than  that  of  omniscience. 
But  as  that  did  not  comport  with  their  predetermined 
atheism,  they  had  no  other  resource  but  to  invent. 
And  so  they  invented.  They  invented  a  theory  of 
the  origin  of  life  and  mind  on  this  planet.  The  in- 
vention may  have  been  original  with  them,  but  it  was 
not  new ;  for  it  had  been  exactly  paralleled  by  the 
late  lamented  Topsy. 

The  most  important  part  of  Professor  Haeckel's 
remarks  on   this  subject  consists  of  the  confession 


THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  HEREDITY.       307 

which  he  inadvertently  makes  when  he  sets  forth  the 
dire  consequences  of  refusing  to  accept  the  theory 
of  spontaneous  generation.  He  who  does  not  accept 
that  theory  "  has  no  other  resource  but  to  believe  in 
a  supernatural  miracle,"  are  the  portentous  words  of 
the  great  atheist. 

Considered  as  an  atheistic  proselyting  agency 
among  the  feeble-minded,  these  words  are  potent, 
as  I  have  already  shown. 

Considered  as  a  statement  of  fact,  they  are  untrue, 
as  I  have  hereinbefore  pointed  out;  for  a  miracle 
cannot  be  predicated  of  an  event  occurring  in  its 
natural  order. 

But,  considered  as  a  scientific  declaration  of  the 
narrow  limits  of  the  field  of  inquiry  for  causation, 
they  are  profoundly  significant. 

It  is  equivalent  to  saying,  "There  are  but  two 
possible  theories  of  causation,  — one  is  spontaneous 
generation,  and  the  other  is  divine  agency." 

The  value  of  this  declaration  consists  in  its 
obvious  and  undeniable  truth.  The  ingenuity  of 
man  is  not  equal  to  the  formulation  of  any  other 
rational  hypothesis  to  account  for  the  origin  of  life 
on  this  planet.  One  of  these  hypotheses  is  true, 
and  the  other  is  false.  There  is,  and  there  can  be, 
no  middle  ground.  Either  positively  excludes  the 
other;  for  they  are  antithetical. 

This  declaration  by  Professor  Haeckel  is  the 
exact  equivalent,  in  its  implications,  of  what  I  have 
been  contending  for  all  along.  It  is  a  declaration 
that  if  the  question  of  theism  or  anti-theism  is  ever 
to  be  settled  by  induction,  it  must  be  done  at  this 
point,  —  the  beginning  of  organic  life.  In  the  mean 


308         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

time,  or  until  the  question  is  settled  at  this  point, 
all  other  questions  pertaining  to  the  subject-matter 
are  purely  subsidiary,  incidental,  and  speculative. 

I  must  not,  however,  be  understood  as  admitting 
that,  even  if  it  could  be  demonstrated  that  organic 
life  could  be  generated  from  inorganic  compounds, 
the  existence  of  an  intelligent  Great  First  Cause  of 
all  things  would  thereby  be  disproved.  On  the  con- 
trary, the  old  arguments  for  the  existence  of  such  a 
Deity  would  not  be  diminished  in  value  in  the  least. 
It  would  simply  be  putting  that  question  one  step 
farther  back,  but  otherwise  leaving  it  just  where  it 
was  found,  —  in  the  domain  of  speculative  philos- 
ophy. On  the  other  hand,  if  an  inductive  examina- 
tion of  the  question  reveals  the  Great  First  Cause 
in  the  lowest  form  of  animal  life,  that  is  to  say,  if 
the  facts  admit  of  no  other  possible  interpretation, 
then  every  teleological  argument  that  has  ever  been 
made  is  invested  with  a  scientific  value  and  sig- 
nificance that  it  never  before  possessed. 

In  the  mean  time  I  am  not  unaware  of  one  logical 
advantage  possessed  by  the  other  side  in  the  discus- 
sion of  this  question.  I  am  fully  impressed  with 
the  value  of  the  scientific  axiom  that  "we  have 
neither  occasion  nor  logical  right  to  ascribe  any 
phenomenon  to  supermundane  agency  so  long  as  it 
can  be  explained  under  principles  of  natural  law 
with  which  we  are  acquainted." 

In  my  former  works1  I  have  strenuously  insisted 
upon  the  never-failing  value  of  this  axiom;  and  I 
have  taken  occasion  to  apply  it  to  the  phenomena  of 

1  See  "The  Law  of  Psychic  Phenomena"  and  "A  Scientific 
Demonstration  of  the  Future  Life." 


THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  HEREDITY.       309 

so-called  spiritism.  And  I  have  undertaken  to  show 
that  the  fatal  weakness  of  spiritism  consists  in  the 
fact  that  all  its  phenomena  are  easily  explicable 
under  natural  laws,  the  existence  of  which  the 
spiritists  do  not  themselves  deny. 

I  just  as  strenuously  insist  upon  the  application 
of  this  rule  to  the  subject  under  present  considera- 
tion. But  I  also  claim  the  right  to  trace  to  a  super- 
mundane source  any  phenomena  that  admittedly 
cannot  be  explained  by  reference  to  any  known  law ; 
and,  a  fortiori,  I  claim  that  right  in  cases  where  all 
the  known  facts  conspire  to  disprove  the  only  pos- 
sible hypothesis  under  which  the  necessity  for  a 
supermundane  explanation  could  be  avoided. 

I  admit  that  it  requires  a  very  strong  array  of 
reasons  to  justify  a  scientist  in  seeking  in  super- 
mundane realms  for  an  explanation  of  phenomena  in 
the  organic  world.  But  it  demands  still  stronger 
reasons  to  justify  him  in  ignoring  facts,  belittling 
their  importance,  or  misrepresenting  their  signifi- 
cance, when  conducting  an  inductive  inquiry.  Still 
stronger  reasons  are  required  to  justify  a  scientist 
in  postulating  a  theory  of  causation  that  is  destitute 
of  either  fact  or  reason  to  support  it;  and  nothing 
can  justify  him  in  belittling  the  intelligence  of 
possible  opponents  by  charging  them  in  advance 
with  gross  superstition. 

Having  now  definitely  ascertained  that  there  are 
neither  facts  nor  reasons  to  sustain  the  theory  of 
spontaneous  generation,  let  us  next  in  order  inquire 
what  facts  there  are  to  warrant  the  acceptance  of 
the  hypothesis  of  hereditary  transmission  from  an 
antecedent  mind. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  HEREDITY   (CONTINUED). 

The  Character  of  the  Heritage.  —  If  essentially  Divine,  it  is  Pre- 
sumptive Evidence    of  Divine   Origin. — If  no  other  Source   is 
Possible,  the  Evidence  is  Conclusive.  —  No  other  Possible  Source 
has  been  shown. — Examination  of  Facts  showing  Divine  Attri- 
butes   in  the    Moneron.  —  They   are   the   Elementary    Facts   of 
Evolution. — They  demonstrate  Intuitive  Knowledge  of  Laws  of 
its  Being.  —  Explanations  on  other  Grounds  Pure  Assumptions. — 
Begging   the   Question.  —  Knowledge    measured   by   Actions.  — 
Adaptation  of  Means  to  Ends  the  Test  of  Intelligence.  —  Attributes 
summed  up.  —  Intuition.  —  Antecedent  to  Organism.  —  Has  Power 
over   Unorganized   Matter.  —  Creative    Power.  —  Creates    New 
Species.  —  Transmits  by  Inheritance. —  Dominant  Instinct  Crea- 
tive.—  Dominant  Emotion  Altruistic.  —  Potentially  Divine.  —  All 
Essential  Attributes  of  the  God  of  Christian  Faith. —  Differing 
only  in   Degree.  —  Knowledge,    Power,    Love.  —  Whence  came 
they  ?  —  The  Question  for  Inductive  Science.  —  Science  knows  of 
but  One  Way  of  acquiring  Faculties,  — Inheritance. —  By  Analy- 
sis of   Faculties   it   learns   the  Character  of   Ancestry,  and  can 
predict   Character  of    Posterity.  —  No   Exceptions  to   Nature's 
Laws.  —  Divine    Faculties    necessarily    a    Divine     Heritage.  — 
Atheistic  Objections.  —  "Supernatural  Miracle." — Objection  In- 
valid.—  Miracle   cannot  be  posited   on   Intelligence.  —  Natural 
Law    always    presumed.  —  Electric     Phenomena    originated    in 
Cosmic  Electrical  Energy.  —  Mind    originated   in  Cosmic    Mind 
Energy. —  Atheistic   Theory    a   Recrudescence  of   Fetichism. — 
Mind  in  Inanimate  Matter,  e.  g.  —  No  Disrespect  to  Fetich  Wor- 
shipper. —  Lodestone   does   not    generate    Magnetism.  —  Proto- 
plasm does  not  generate  Mind.  —  Each  Substance  is  a  Medium 
of   Manifestation   of    a   Cosmic   Energy.  —  Can    One   Mind    be 
produced  from    Another  ?  —  Reproduction    an   Example.  —  Re- 
production by  Fission  Demonstrative.  — The  Monera  indefinitely 
Divisible.  —  Each  Particle  a  Distinct  Mind  Organism. —  Repro- 
duction a  Mental  Act.  —  Inferences  as  to  Divine  Methods.  —  The 
Mind  of  each  Sentient  Creature  a  Part  of  the  Divine  Mind. — 
Logical   Rules   of   Investigation.  —  The   Law   of  Parsimony.  — 


THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  HEREDITY.       3 1 1 

All  violated  by  Atheism.  —  Truth  does  not  necessitate  a  Violation 
of  Logical  Principles.  —  All  Essential  Truth  may  be  known 
by  Inductive  Investigation.  —  Application  of  Rules. —  Logical 
Axioms:  (i)  No  Effect  without  a  Cause;  (2)  Cause  always 
Commensurable  with  Effect.  —  They  are  "  Universal  Postu- 
lates."—  We  may  therefore  always  know  the  Nature  of  a  Cause 
by  observing  its  Effects.  —  Nature  never  erects  False  Signals.  — 
Under  this  Law  we  know  that  the  Cause  of  Mind  is  Mind.  — 
Under  the  Law  of  Heredity  we  know  its  Attributes,  —  that  it  is 
an  Organized,  Conscious  Intelligence,  a  Personality,  a  Creative 
Intelligence,  a  Constant  Energy,  Omniscient,  Omnipotent,  Altru- 
istic. —  No  other  Hypothesis  accounts  for  All  the  Facts.  —  If 
Nature  is  Constant,  we  know  that  God  is  our  Father. 

THE  presentation  of  the  facts  and  phenomena 
which  confirm  the  theory  of  divine  inherit- 
ance of  mental  attributes  will  necessarily  involve 
more  or  less  of  recapitulation  of  what  has  been 
already  mentioned.  But  at  that  risk  I  deem  it 
desirable  so  to  group  the  facts  as  to  give  the  reader 
a  perspective  view  of  the  whole. 

The  first  fact  to  be  considered  is  the  character  of 
the  heritage.  This  is  of  the  first  importance;  for  its 
evidential  value  must  be  measured  by  its  character. 
That  is  to  say,  the  quality  of  the  thing  possessed, 
and  alleged  to  be  an  inheritance  from  a  given  ances- 
tor, must  be  identical  with  that  known  or  presumed 
to  belong  to  said  ancestor.  Otherwise  no  presump- 
tion could  arise  from  the  character  of  the  thing  pos- 
sessed in  favor  of  the  verity  of  the  allegation.  If, 
however,  it  is  found  to  be  identical  with  that  known 
to  belong  to  the  alleged  ancestor,  the  presumption 
is  strongly  in  favor  of  the  truth  of  the  allegation. 
And  this  presumption  is  converted  into  conclusive 
evidence  when  it  is  known  that  there  is  no  other 
possible  source  from  which  such  a  heritage  could  be 
derived.  Thus,  if  a  divine  ancestry  is  claimed,  the 


312         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

inheritance  must  be  shown  to  be  in  its  essence 
divine.  Otherwise  the  heritage  in  itself  possesses 
no  evidential  value  bearing  upon  the  question  of  its 
origin.  But  if  it  can  be  shown  to  be  divine  in  its 
essential  characteristics,  the  presumption  is  in  favor 
of  the  claim ;  and  said  presumption  is  greatly 
strengthened  in  the  absence  of  evidence  of  any  other 
possible  source  of  inheritance. 

Thus,  if  the  mind  of  the  moneron  is  shown  to  be 
invested  with  the  essential  attributes  of  omniscience 
and  omnipotence,  differing  only  in  degree  and  not 
in  kind,  the  presumption  is  in  favor  of  the  theory  of 
divine  inheritance.  And  in  the  absence  of  evidence 
of  any  other  possible  source  of  inheritance,  its 
mental  attributes  possess  an  evidential  value  of  an 
order  so  high  as  to  require  conclusive  evidence  to 
the  contrary  to  rebut  the  presumption.  In  the 
absence  of  such  rebutting  evidence,  if  it  could  be 
shown  affirmatively  that  there  is  no  other  possible 
source  of  inheritance,  the  evidence  in  favor  of  divine 
inheritance  would  be  conclusive.  But  as  affirmative 
proof  of  a  negative  proposition  is  in  any  case  diffi- 
cult to  procure,  and  in  this  case  quite  impossible, 
we  must  rest  content  with  the  very  high  order  of 
presumptive  evidence  which  is  ours  in  the  absence 
of  any  evidence  whatever  to  rebut  the  presumption. 

Fortunately,  however,  the  claims  of  atheism  are 
of  such  a  character  as  to  be  equivalent  to  a  very 
high  order  of  evidence  of  their  own  falsity.  When 
a  party  to  a  controversy  sets  up  an  allegation  that  is 
absurd  on  its  face,  and  confesses  that  he  has  no 
proof  whatever  that  it  is  true,  it  is  equivalent  to  an 
admission  that  he  has  no  case.  Then,  if  it  is  also 


THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  HEREDITY.       313 

shown  that  all  the  known  facts  tend  to  disprove  his 
allegation,  presumptive  evidence  on  the  other  side 
is  converted  into  the  equivalent  of  conclusive 
evidence. 

And  this  is  exactly  the  status  of  the  controversy 
between  theism  and  atheism  over  the  question  of  the 
origin  of  life.  A  high  order  of  presumptive  evi- 
dence that  life  is  a  divine  inheritance  is  met  by 
the  theory  of  spontaneous  generation,  —  a  hypothesis 
admittedly  without  a  fact  to  sustain  it,  — an  abandon- 
ment at  once  of  the  law  of  heredity  and  of  the 
methods  of  induction;  a  reckless  leap  into  the 
cloudy  realms  of  speculative  philosophy,  sans 
reason,  sans  probability,  sans  truth,  sans  every- 
thing save  an  insensate  determination  to  avoid  the 
obvious  truth  that  the  phenomena  of  intelligence 
must  have  an  intelligent  origin. 

There  is,  for  the  agnostics,  one  way  of  temporary 
escape  from  their  logical  dilemma.  That  is  to  say, 
there  is  one  way  by  which  they  could  retain  a  tem- 
porary hold  upon  the  law  of  heredity;  and  that  is  by 
affirming  that  mind  exists  in  the  rocks  and  mud  at 
the  bottom  of  the  ocean.  This  would  give  to  the 
monera  an  earthly  ancestor,  endowed,  of  course,  with 
the  same  quality  of  mind,  —  the  same  potentials. 
But  even  this  would  only  serve  to  put  the  real  ques- 
tion one  step  farther  back;  for  if  it  could  be  demon- 
strated that  every  atom  of  matter  composing  this 
earth  is  endowed  with  a  mind,  the  question  of  that 
mind's  origin  would  still  remain  just  as  it  is  now, 
and  the  same  arguments  would  hold  good. 

But  I  prefer  not  to  lead  them  into  the  mire  and 
mud  of  speculation  without  facts  further  than  they 


3H        THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE  OF  MAN. 

have  chosen  to  go.  I  prefer  to  remain  upon  the 
solid  ground  of  truth  as  we  find  it,  and  laws  as  we 
know  them,  ^acts  are_diyine  revelations.  Specu- 
lative philosophy  is  guesswork.  We  know  some- 
thing of  the  mind  manifested  in  the  monera;  and  we 
know  something  of  the  essentials  of  the  law  of 
heredity.  But  we  know  nothing  of  a  mind  existing 
in  mud ;  and  we  know  of  no  process  of  acquiring  a 
mind  except  by  inheritance. 

Now  let  us  re-examine  those  faculties  possessed 
by  'the  moneron  which  proclaim  its  divine  pedi- 
gree :  — 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  admitted  by  all  evolution- 
ists that  it  is  invested  with  the  potentialities  of 
manhood.  That  is  to  say,  it  possesses  in  rudi- 
mentary form  all  the  activities,  mental  and  physical, 
to  be  found  in  man.  "  It  transforms  food  into  tissue 
and  other  metabolic  products,  and  this  is  the  basis 
of  all  the  nutritive  activities  and  processes  of  the 
higher  animals.  It  can  move  parts  of  itself  [pseu- 
dopodia]  and  is  capable  of  locomotion,  and  this  is 
the  basis  of  all  movement  in  the  higher  animals 
brought  about  by  bones  and  muscles.  It  can  feel  a 
stimulus  and  respond,  and  this  is  the  basis  of  the 
sensory  faculties  of  the  higher  animals.  It  can 
reproduce  itself  by  segmentation,  and  this  is  the 
basis  of  reproduction  in  the  higher  animals.  On 
dividing  it  inherits  the  actual  qualities  of  the  parent 
mass,  and  this  is  the  basis  of  heredity."1  In  short, 
it  possesses  the  instinct  of  self-preservation,  and 
this  is  the  basis  of  all  the  self-regarding  emotions 
and  activities  characteristic  of  man;  and  it  pos- 

1  See  Professor  Gates  in  "  Therapist,"  December,  1895. 


THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  HEREDITY.       315 

sesses  the  instinct  of  reproduction,  and  this  is  the 
basis  of  all  the  altruistic,  or  other-regarding,  emo- 
tions and  activities  that  characterize  the  noblest 
manhood. 

No  one  will  dispute  these  propositions;  for  they 
are  the  elementary  facts  in  the  history  of  organic 
evolution.  Nor  can  any  one  successfully  controvert 
the  conclusion  that  the  possession  of  these  attributes 
demonstrates  the  proposition  that  the  moneron  is 
endowed  with  an  intuitive  knowledge  of  the  essential 
laws  of  its  being.  It  is  no  answer  to  this  proposi- 
tion to  say  that  its  acts  are  "automatic,"  and  there- 
fore without  intelligence;  for  that  is  begging  the 
question.  Besides,  it  is  a  contradiction  in  terms  to 
say  that  an  intelligent  action  can  be  performed 
without  intelligence.  That  its  actions  are  prompted 
by  intelligence  is  demonstrated  by  the  fact  that  all 
its  acts  are  adaptations  of  means  to  ends.  Nor  does 
it  do  to  say  that  its  actions  are  "unconscious,"  for 
that,  too,  is  begging  the  question.  Again,  it  is  a 
contradiction  in  terms  to  say  that  an  intelligent 
adaptation  of  means  to  ends  is  an  unconscious 
act.  To  say  that  it  is  reflex  action,  and  therefore 
not  conscious,  is  another  way  of  begging  the  ques- 
tion; for  reflex  action  itself  is  an  adaptation  of 
means  to  ends,  as  I  have  already  pointed  out.  All 
these  terms  are  pure  inventions,  apparently  con- 
cocted either  to  conceal  ignorance  of  the  real  sig- 
nificance of  instinct,  or  to  belittle  that  significance 
in  the  interest  of  materialism.  In  this,  as  in  every 
subject  of  human  investigation,  one  grain  of  fact, 
intelligently  observed  and  interpreted  without  preju- 
dice, outweighs  all  the  theories  that  were  ever  con- 


3l6         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

cocted  for  the  sole  purpose  of  evading  the  obvious 
significance  of  the  phenomena.  The  only  way  to 
ascertain  what  a  sentient  creature  knows  is  to 
observe  what  it  does.  If  it  acts  intelligently,  it 
must  be  presumed  to  be  intelligent  until  the  con- 
trary is  demonstrated.  If  it  observes  the  laws  of  its 
being  and  invariably  acts  in  accordance  therewith, 
it  must  be  presumed  to  have  a  knowledge  of  those 
laws,  even  though  materialistic  science  may  fail  to 
find  the  source  of  that  knowledge  in  the  material 
world.  In  short,  if  it  acts  just  as  an  intelligent, 
conscious  being  ought  to  act,  it  must  be  presumed 
to  be  intelligent  and  conscious  until  the  contrary  is 
clearly  proven. 

Applying  these  facts  and  principles  to  the  monera, 
it  will  readily  be  seen,  not  only  that  the  evolution- 
ists are  warranted  in  their  asseveration  that  it  con- 
tains the  potentials  of  manhood,  but  that  I  am 
justified  in  declaring  that  the  mental  attributes  of 
the  moneron  cannot  be  adequately  described  except 
in  terms  that  apply  to  omniscience  and  omnipotence. 

We  may  now  sum  up  the  attributes  and  powers  of 
the  mind  of  the  moneron  which  are  essentially  and 
potentially  divine,  as  follows:  — 

1.  It  apprehends  by  intuition  the  essential  laws 
of  its  being;  that  is  to  say,  all  essential  truth  per- 
taining to  its  state  of  existence,  its  stage  of  develop- 
ment, and  its  environment. 

2.  It  is  antecedent  to  physical  organism. 

3.  It  has  power  over  unorganized  matter. 

4.  It  has  the  power  to  create  a  physical  organism 
out  of  unorganized  matter. 

5.  It  has  the  power  to  create  other  mental  organ- 


THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  HEREDITY.      317 

isms,  complete  and  individualized,  out  of  its  own 
mental  organism,  by  a  simple  act  of  volition  (repro- 
duction). 

6.  It  has  the  power  to  create  new  species  (amoeba). 

7.  It  transmits  by  inheritance  its  essential  char- 
acteristics and  powers. 

8.  Its  dominant  instinct  is  creative. 

9.  Finally,   its  dominant   emotion  is   essentially 
altruistic. 

Can  the  mind  of  man  conceive  of  a  finite,  sentient 
creature,  possessing  in  essential  purity  more  god- 
like attributes  than  are  here  enumerated? 

By  extension  alone  to  infinity  they  correspond 
to  the  highest  conceptions  of  God,  —  the  God  of 
Christian  faith, — a  God  of  infinite  knowledge,  a 
God  of  infinite  power,  a  God  of  infinite  love. 

Whence  were  these  attributes  and  powers  derived  ? 
That  is  a  question  lor  science  to  answer;  and  we 
propose  to  submit  the  question  to  that  august 
tribunal,  stipulating  only  that  it  shall  employ  the 
inductive  method  of  conducting  the  investigation, 
and  that  its  decision  shall  be  founded  upon  observ- 
able facts  and  known  laws.  The  facts  are  before  us, 
and  no  one  disputes  them.  What  of  the  laws  ? 

Science  tells  us  that  it  has  conducted  an  exhaus- 
tive investigation  of  facts,  covering  a  period  of  a 
somewhat  indefinite  number  of  aeons,  but  extending 
from  the  monera  to  man,  and  that  it  has  found  that 
the  law  of  heredity  is  universal.  In  other  words, 
science  knows  of  no  law  under  which  a  faculty  of 
mind  can  be  acquired  except  that  of  heredity.  It 
knows  that  innumerable  facts  exist  bearing  upon 
this  question,  and  that  they  all  conspire  to  demon- 


318         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE  OF  MAN. 

strate  the  universality  of  that  law.  Applying  the 
infallible  test  of  the  validity  of  a  law,  —  namely,  the 
ability  to  make  inerrant  predictions  under  it,  science 
avers  that  it  can,  by  an  analysis  of  the  mental  facul- 
ties of  any  sentient  creature,  predict  with  absolute 
certainty  the  quality  and  kind  of  mental  faculties 
that  its  offspring  will  possess ;  and  that  it  can,  with 
equal  certainty,  determine  the  character  of  the 
faculties  possessed  by  its  ancestor.  If  therefore 
there  is  an  exception  to  this  law  of  hereditary  trans- 
mission of  mental  attributes,  science  knows  nothing 
of  it.  That  is  to  say,  science  has  never  yet  discov- 
ered one  fact  in  nature  that  hints  of  the  existence  of 
any  means  of  acquiring  mental  faculties  other  than 
that  of  inheritance  from  an  ancestral  mind  endowed 
with  faculties  identical  in  kind. 

Planting  himself,  therefore,  upon  the  facts  that 
are  known  to  exist,  and  upon  a  law  that  is  universal, 
and  insisting  upon  the  strict  application  of  the 
processes  of  induction  as  being  the  only  legitimate 
method  of  scientific  inquiry,  the  theistic  evolutionist 
declares  that  divine  faculties  are  andean  be  nothing 
less  than  a  divine  heritage. 

Now  let  us  inquire,  What  possible  objection  can 
science  offer  to  this  conclusion?  Practically  but 
one  objection  has  ever  been  offered;  for  all  others 
are  but  varying  forms  of  that  one.  Professor 
Haeckel  has  advanced  it  in  its  simplest,  crudest, 
and  most  direct  form.  His  objection  is  that  its 
acceptance  requires  us  to  believe  in  a  "supernatural 
miracle,"  —  i.e.,  a  special  creation  by  "supernatural  " 
means.  This  objection,  if  it  had  the  slightest 
adumbration  of  truth  in  or  about  it,  would  be  valid 


THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  HEREDITY.       319 

and  conclusive.     For  no  true  scientist  can  accept  a 
hypothesis  that  involves  a  belief  in  a  miracle,  or  in 
anything   supernatural,   much    less  a  "supernatural 
miracle."       The    anti-theistic    scientist    does    not 
believe  that  there  is  any  God  to  perform  a  miracle;  _ 
and  the  theistic  scientist  entertains  too  profound  a  "j 
reverence  for  God,  a  conception  of  his  wisdom  and 
power   too   exalted,  to  admit  for  one  moment  that 
his  original  plan  of  creation  was  so  imperfect  that  , 
it   became   necessary   to    supplement  it  by  special 
creations  or  miracles.  r 

Is  it  necessary,  then,  to  posit  a  miracle,  or  a 
special  creation,  on  the  basis  of  a  belief  in  divine 
inheritance  of  mental  faculties?  Clearly  not.  It  is 
only  necessary  to  posit  an  intelligent  origin  for 
intelligence;  a  mental  origin  for  mind;  an  intelli- 
gent creative  energy,  or  a  being  endowed  with 
intelligence  and  creative  energy,  as  the  progenitor 
of  other  intelligent  beings  who  are  endowed  with 
the  same  powers.  This  is  the  natural  order  of 
things  so  far  as  scientific  research  has  been  able  to 
inform  mankind ;  and  the  burden  of  proof  rests  upon 
the  one  who  seeks  to  show  that  the  same  law  did  not 
prevail  at  the  beginning  of  organic  life.  Being  in 
the  natural  order  of  inheritance,  the  event  itself 
must  be  presumed  to  have  occurred  within  the 
domain  of  natural  law.  A  miracle  cannot  be 
posited  upon  a  showing  of  intelligence. 

It  requires  no  greater  strain  upon  the  credulity  of 
man  to  suppose  a  mental  origin  for  mind  than  it  does 
to  suppose  an  electrical  origin  for  electricity.  We 
might  just  as  reasonably  deny  that  the  electricity  of 
the  earth  has  its  source  in  the  electrical  energy  of 


320        THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

the  universe,  as  deny  that  the  mental  energy  which 
we  see  manifested  on  this  planet  has  its  source  in  a 
universal  mind.  It  would  be  just  as  reasonable  to 
hold  that  electricity  has  its  origin  in  its  terrestrial 
non-conductors,  as  to  hold  that  organic  life  and 
mind  had  their  origin  in  inanimate,  inorganic,  insen- 
sate, terrestrial  matter.  Not  that  I  would  insinuate 
that  the  two  suppositions  are  logical  equivalents ; 
for  they  are  not.  The  electrical  supposition  would 
be  simple  lunacy.  But  the  supposition  that  intelli- 
gence exists  in  stones  and  mud  is  the  fundamental 
hypothesis  of  fetichism.  I  hasten  to  say  that  this 
last  remark  is  not  intended  as  a  slur  on  the  religion 
of  the  fetich  worshiper.  Far  from  it.  It  is  in  the 
nature  of  a  vindication,  for  his  theory  is  just  as  well 
fortified  by  facts  as  is  that  of  the  atheistic  "  scientist." 
Considered  as  inductive  philosophies,  therefore,  they 
are  entitled  to  equal  consideration.  In  point  of  fact, 
the  parallelism  is  about  complete.  Thus,  (a)  the 
two  theories  of  the  ultimate  origin  and  source  of 
life  and  mind  meet  in  the  same  inanimate  object, 
(b)  They  are  equally  destitute  of  facts  or  of  reason 
to  support  them,  (c)  The  same  facts  of  nature 
unite  in  protest  against  both  theories.  (d)  The 
fetichist  worships  the  inanimate  object  or  substance  in 
which  the  two  theories  locate  life  and  mind,  (e)  The 
atheistic  philosopher  elevates  his  materialistic  science 
into  a  fetich  and  worships  that.  Speaking,  there- 
fore, with  the  careful  precision  of  a  definitive  formula, 
it  must  be  held  that  the  atheistic  theory  of  the  origin 
of  mind  and  life  is  a  recrudescence  of  fetichism. 

To  return  to  our  electrical  comparison,!  repeat  that 
it  is  just  as  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the  mental 


THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  HEREDITY.       321 

organisms  of  the  monera  are  segregated  parts  of  a 
universal  mind  as  to  suppose  that  the  electricity 
which  we  find  in  the  earth  is  a  part  of  the  electrical 
energy  of  the  universe.  Each  is  a  form  of  energy, — 
a  mode  of  motion,  if  you  please.  Each  is  universal 
and  all-pervasive,  so  far  as  we  are  able  to  perceive. 
The  universal  electrical  energy,  not  by  means  of  a 
miracle,  but  in  pursuance  of  a  universal  law,  im- 
pinged upon  this  planet  and  found  its  sphere  of  local 
activity  in  the  various  substances  best  adapted  to 
the  purpose.  In  one  substance  it  produces  certain 
phenomena;  in  other  substances  certain  other  phe- 
nomena. In  some  cases  it  appears  to  be  entirely 
severed  from  all  connection  with  the  universal. 
It  can  be  artificially  detached  and  made  to  do  work, 
as  in  an  electrical  machine  or  in  a  magnet.  In  the 
latter  form  we  find  that  nature  has  stored  it  up  in 
the  lodestone  or  magnetic  iron  ore,  etc.  That  it 
is  separated  only  in  appearance  or  in  its  visible 
effects,  is  quite  probable.  In  other  words,  that  it 
still  maintains  a  connection  with  the  universal  elec- 
trical energy  may  be  conceded. 

In  like  manner  it  may  be  supposed  that  the  uni- 
versal energy  which  we  call  mind  seizes  upon  the 
proper  material  of  this  earth,  pervades  it,  and  pro- 
duces its  corresponding  phenomena ;  and  in  like  man- 
ner we  find  that  this  energy  apparently  emanates 
from  the  universal  energy.  It  is  individualized  in 
the  moneron  and  its  posterity,  and  apparently  leads 
an  independent  life.  I  say  "  apparently,"  for  it  is 
not  necessary  to  suppose  that  it  has  severed  its  con- 
nection with  the  universal  mind,  any  more  than  it  is 
necessary  to  suppose  that  the  electrical  energy  of  the 

21 


322         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN, 

earth  is  dissociated  from  that  of  the  whole  universe. 
Nor  is  it  necessary  to  posit  a  miracle  in  either  case. 
On  the  contrary,  the  phenomena  in  each  case  pro 
claim  a  universal  law,  and  reveal  a  universal,  all- 
pervasive,  omnipresent  energy,  —  not  inherent  in 
matter,  but  immanent  in  the  universe,  In  each  case 
certain  forms  or  compositions  of  matter  are  required 
as  a  basis  for  the  phenomenal  manifestation  of  its 
energy.  That  is  all.  In  neither  case  does  the 
medium  generate  the  force  or  energy.  Magnetic 
oxide  of  iron,  or  an  iron  bar,  is  a  good  medium  for 
the  manifestation  of  magnetic  phenomena.  But 
the  magnet  does  not  generate  the  force.  That  force 
comes  from  without,  —  from  the  great  source  of 
electrical  energy,  which  is  coextensive  with  the  uni- 
verse. It  is  simply  a  form  of  electrical  energy  that 
finds  a  medium  of  manifestation  in  certain  material 
._  compounds. 

Protoplasm  is  the  physical  medium  through  which 
mind  manifests  itself.  In  this  sense  it  is  "  the 
physical  basis  of  life,"  as  Huxley  terms  it;  but  in  no 
other.  It  does  not  generate  mind.  That,  too,  comes 
from  without,  —  from  an  eternal  source,  —  a  constant, 
ever-present,  all-pervasive  force  or  energy  that  finds 
in  protoplasm  a  medium  through  which  the  phenom- 
ena of  life  and  mind  may  be  manifested  on  this 
planet. 

Many  will  ask  the  question,  "  How  can  a  mind 
be  segregated  from  the  Infinite  mind  so  as  to  become 
an  individualized  independent  entity?"  Some  will 
employ  the  usual  atheistic  formula  for  evading  un- 
welcome conclusions,  and  cut  the  matter  short  by 
declaring  that  it  is  "  unthinkable."  Others  will  look 


THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  HEREDITY.      323 

wise,  shake  their  heads,  and  declare  that  it  is  "  incon- 
ceivable; "  and,  because  no  one  can  tell  just  how  it 
is  done,  many  will  declare  that  it  is  "  impossible." 

Obviously  no  one  can  tell  how  the  Almighty  does  , 
his  wondrous  work ;  and  it  is  not  a  legitimate  ques- 
tion to  ask.  The  real  question  is,  first,  Can  one  mind 
be  segregated  from  another  and  both  become  in-  1 
dividualized,  independent  entities?  If  the  facts  of 
nature  answer  this  question  in  the  affirmative,  we  may  \ 
well  suppose  that  the  wisdom  and  power  of  God  are 
equal  to  the  task  of  doing  his  part  of  the  work  in 
his  own  way.  The  answer,  then,  is  that  the  mind  \ 
of  every  living  creature  on  earth  was  derived  from 
another  mind.  The  act  of  reproduction  by  unicel- 
lular organisms  is  a  tangible  answer  to  that  question; 
for  it  can  be  witnessed  at  any  time  by  any  one  who 
will  take  the  trouble  to  look.  The  fission  of  the 
amoeba  or  of  the  moneron  is  an  act  by  which  one 
mind  is  segregated  from  another,  each  being  and 
remaining  intact;  and  as  each  in  turn  reproduces 
itself  in  the  same  manner,  and  so  on  indefinitely,  it 
follows,  as  Weisman  remarks,  that  the  unicellular 
organism  is  "potentially  immortal."  And  if  Weis- 
man's  "  germ-plasm  "  theory  is  correct,  each  living 
creature  contains  within  itself  a  part  of  the  original 
moneron  from  which  it  descended.  This  may  also 
be  true  under  the  "gemmule"  theory  of  Darwin  and 
his  followers. 

Be  that  as  it  may,  the  fact  remains  that  the  segre- 
gation of  one  mind  from  another,  in  both  sexual  and 
asexual  reproduction,  is  one  of  the  universal  facts 
in  nature.  It  is,  indeed,  the  one  essential  fact  in 
heredity. 


324        THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE  OF  MAN. 

One  further  consideration  should  not  be  lost  sight 
of,  and  that  is  that  reproduction  is  largely,  if  not 
wholly,  a  mental  act  or  function.  Those  who  hold 
that  physical  organism  generates  mind  will  not  admit 
this  to  be  true  so  far  as  the  higher  animals  are  con- 
cerned. But  no  one  can  deny  that  it  is  true  of  the 
moneron ;  for  there  is  no  physical  organism  in  that 
creature  to  complicate  the  question.  The  mind  that 
invests  it  acts  wholly  upon  unorganized  matter.  The 
act  of  fission,  therefore,  was  wholly  due  to  mental 
energy.  It  was  an  act  of  volition  prompted  by  an 
emotional  impulse.  And  that  impulse  was  the  pri- 
mordial manifestation  of  the  constant  force  or  energy 
that  lies  at  the  bottom  of  all  progressional  develop- 
ment in  the  physical,  mental,  moral,  and  religious 
worlds.  It  was  primordial  altruism,  —  the  first  act  of 
a  sentient  creature  prompted  wholly  by  the  other- 
regarding  impulse,  —  the  first  manifestation  of  love 
on  this  earth,  the  first  tangible  exemplification  of 
mind's  creative  power. 

Again,  a  very  important  point  to  be  noted  is  that 
the  plasson  which  constitutes  the  monera  presents 
a  tangible  exemplification  of  what  must  be  true  of 
the  divine  mind  if  it  is  true  that  the  mind  of  each 
sentient  creature  is  "a  spark  of  the  divine  intelli- 
gence,"—  "a  part  of  the  mind  of  God."  If  that 
•*  theory  is  true,  it  necessarily  follows  that  the  divine 

i  mind  is  infinitely  divisible.     It  is  a  conception  diffi- 
cult to  grasp,  and  impossible  to  formulate  in  adequate 

^  finite   terms;     and    yet    it    has   been    more    or    less 

i  vaguely  entertained  by  every  theist  who  believes  in 
the  Christian  doctrine  of  the  fatherhood  of  God  or 

*  in  the  divinity  of  man.     In  the  moneron,  however, 


THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  HEREDITY.      325 

we  find  a  concrete  example  of  the  indefinite  divisi- 
bility of  mind. 

"The  monera  are,"  says  Haeckel,  "homogeneous 
and  structureless;  each  part  of  the  body  is  every 
other  part.  Each  part  can  absorb  and  digest  nour- 
ishment; each  part  is  excitable  and  sensitive;  each 
part  can  move  itself  independently ;  and,  lastly,  each 
part  is  capable  of  reproduction  and  regeneration."  l 
Again  he  says :  "  The  most  remarkable  of  all  monera 
is  the  Bathybius,  which  was  discovered  by  Huxley 
in  1868.  This  wonderful  moneron  lives  in  the 
deepest  parts  of  the  sea,  especially  in  the  Atlantic 
Ocean,  and  in  places  covers  the  whole  floor  of  the 
sea  in  such  masses  that  the  fine  mud  in  the  latter 
consists,  in  great  measure,  of  living  slime.  The  pro- 
toplasm in  these  formless  nets  does  not  seem  differ- 
entiated at  all ;  each  little  piece  is  capable  of  forming 
an  individual."2  And,  it  may  be  added,  it  follows 
that  "  each  little  piece  "  may  be  still  further  divided, 
either  artificially  or  by  reproduction,  and  so  on, 
indefinitely. 

Here,  then,  is  a  concrete  fact,  easily  observable 
under  the  microscope,  demonstrating  not  only  that 
one  mind  can  be  segregated  from  another  mind,  but 
that  mind  is  in  itself  indefinitely  divisible.  More- 
over, it  reveals  a  law  of  mind  energy  which  not  only 
lies  at  the  basis  of  all  the  subsequent  phenomena  of 
heredity  and  evolutionary  development,  but  requires, 
as  a  necessary  hypothesis,  under  the  law  of  heredity, 
an  antecedent  mind  energy  identical  in  all  essential 
characteristics.  To  use  the  language  which  Pro- 

1  The  Evolution  of  Man,  p.  48. 

2  Op.  cit.  pp.  48,  49. 


326        THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

fessor  Haeckel  employed  with  such  transparent  in- 
genuousness in  reference  to  the  theory  of  spontaneous 
generation,  "  this  assumption  is  required  by  the 
demand  of  the  human  understanding  for  causality." 
Or,  to  use  the  language  of  Professor  Zoellner  in 
reference  to  the  same  "  spontaneous "  theory,  it  is 
the  "  condition  necessary  to  the  conceivability  of 
nature  in  accordance  with  the  laws  of  causality."  ] 

I  submit  that  I  have  a  right  to  employ  these  ex- 
pressions in  reference  to  my  theory,  and  that  their 
authors  have  not  that  right  with  reference  to  the 
theory  of  spontaneous  generation.  The  "  demand 
of  the  human  understanding  for  causality"  is  not 
supplied  by  assumptions  without  facts  to  sustain 
them  ;  nor  is  the  "  conceivability  of  nature  in  accord- 
ance with  the  laws  of  causality  "  facilitated  by  the 
assumption  of  an  inconceivable  cause. 

There  is  a  law  of  induction  known  to  logicians  (and 
sometimes  observed  by  them)  which  is  denominated 
"  the  law  of  parcimony."  It  was  first  formulated 
by  Sir  William  Hamilton,  and  applied  by  him  to  the 
inductive  investigation  of  the  laws  of  the  human 
mind.  The  rule  is  "  that  no  fact  be  assumed  as  a 
fact  of  consciousness  but  what  is  ultimate  and 
simple." 2  It  has  since  been  extended  into  a 
general  rule  of  inductive  observation,  and  defined 
as  "the  principle  that  nothing  shall  be  assumed 
as  a  fact  that  is  not  such  in  reality."3  Another 
definition  is  "  sparingness,  as  in  assumptions,"  — 
which  gives  a  little  more  latitude.  It  is  a  good 

1  Quoted  by  Haeckel,  op.  cit.  p.  33. 

2  Metaphysics,  Lect.  XV.  p.  186. 
8  Standard  Dictionary. 


THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  HEREDITY.      327 

rule,  and,  as  before  remarked,  it  is  sometimes 
observed  by  logicians,  sometimes  not.  But,  to 
do  entire  justice  to  those  who  do  not  observe  the 
rule,  it  must  be  said  that  they  depart  from  it  only 
when  driven  by  "  necessity,"  as  in  the  case  of  those 
who  entertain  the  theory  of  spontaneous  generation. 
In  that  case  they  boldly  abandon  the  law  of  parci- 
mony  and  assume  everything,  even  the  very  question 
at  issue;  and  the  only  justification  offered  is  the  plea 
of  "  necessity." 

Now,  it  may  be  confidently  affirmed  that  truth  —  that 
is,  any  truth  that  it  is  important  for  man  to  know  — 
never  drives  the  logician  to  any  such  extremities. 
Truth  is  always  fortified  by  facts,  laws,  and  self- 
evident  logicaT^rincipJes  or  propositions,.^  The  facts 
and  the  laws  may  not  be  known,  of  course,  and 
hence  the  truth  may  lie  hidden  pending  investiga- 
tion ;  but  they  exist,  nevertheless,  and  sooner  or 
later  man  will  find  out  all  that  it  is  important  for 
him  to  know.  Again,  the  facts  may  be  known  and 
the  laws  may  be  in  doubt.  In  that  case  hypothesis 
is  a  legitimate  instrument  of  logic.  But  when  that 
instrument  is  employed  there  are  two  inexorable 
rules  that  must  be  observed  if  truth  is  the  object 
desired.  The  first  is  that  there  must  be  some  facts 
to  sustain  the_hypothesisj  and,  secondly,  one  adverse 
fact  is  su  fficient_to  disprove  the  soundness  of  any 


__ 

But  when  the  salient  facts  of  any  subject  of  inves- 
tigation are  known,  and  when  some  of  the  funda- 
mental laws  governing  its  phenomena  are  discovered, 
logical  induction  will  generally  be  found  equal  to  the 
task  of  ascertaining  the  essential  truth  without  the 


328         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

necessity  of  assuming  anything  but  the  constancy  of 
nature. 

Now,  let  us  apply  these  principles  to  the  subject 
under  consideration, — the  origin  of  life  and  mind. 
The  facts  have  been  enumerated  in  the  preceding 
pages.  They  are  the  facts  and  phenomena  of  organic 
and  mental  evolution,  beginning  with  the  moneron 
and  ending  with  man.  The  laws  which  correlate  the 
phenomena  and  explain  the  facts,  so  far  as  they 
have  been  discovered,  have  been  set  forth.  They 
are  the  laws  of  heredity  and  of  progressive  develop- 
ment. The  self-evident  logical  axioms  are  the 
following:  — 

*•      I.  Every  effect  or  phenomenon  in  nature  has  an 

.  efficient  and  appropriate  cause. 

I      2.  Every  cause  is  commensurable  with  its  effects 

J^or  phenomena. 

The  first  of  these  propositions  is  an  axiom  which 
everybody  admits  to  be  indisputable.  The  second  is 
more  in  the  nature  of  a  truism,  —  the  equivalent  of 
saying  that  light  is  caused  by  a  luminous  body;  that 
electrical  phenomena  are  caused  by  electricity,  etc. 
It  is  but  another  way  of  saying  that  like  produces 
like, —  that  like  causes  produce  like  effects;  that  rain 
causes  dampness;  in  short,  that  all  causative  agencies 
produce  effects  that  correspond  to  the  nature  of  the 
causes.  This  is  what  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer  would 
designate  as  the  "universal  postulate;"  for  "the 
inconceivableness  of  its  negation  "  shows  that  it  pos- 
sesses "  unsurpassable  validity."  l  That  is  to  say,  it 
is  impossible  to  conceive  the  negative  of  the  propo- 
sition that  cause  and  effect  are  commensurable. 

1  Principles  of  Psychology,  ii. —  2,  p.  407. 


THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  HEREDITY.      329 

To  deny  this  postulate  is  to  assume  an  attitude  of 
pure  and  simple  negation;  it  is  to  deny  the  fact  of 
the  constancy  of  nature,  —  to  deny  that  the  phenom- 
ena of  nature  possess  any  significance  whatever. 

It  would  be  equivalent  to  an  affirmation  that  the 
phenomena  of  nature  are  to  be  interpreted  by  the 
rule  of  contraries.  It  would  be  equivalent  to  a 
wholesale  denial  of  the  validity  of  induction  as  a 
process  of  scientific  inquiry. 

Now,  let  us  see  what  are  the  logical  implications  of 
the  affirmative  of  the  postulate.  Simply  this:  that 
by  an  examination  of  the  nature  of  effects  or  phe- 
nomena we  can  always  know  the  nature  of  their  efficient 
causes.  We  may  not  be  able  to  drag  the  cause  to 
light  so  as  to  weigh  it  in  a  balance,  dissect  it  with  a 
scalpel,  or  exhibit  it  on  a  stage;  but  we  can  know  its 
nature  with  just  as  great  a  degree  of  certainty  as  if 
we  could  do  all  those  things.  Thus,  when  we  see  a 
spring  of  water  gushing  from  the  side  of  a  mountain, 
we  may  not  be  able  to  reach  its  source  even  by  tun- 
nelling the  mountain,  for  it  may  be  many  miles  dis- 
tant. But  we  know  the  nature  of  that  source.  We 
know  that  it  is  a  body  of  water.  "  But,"  some  one 
may  say,  "  suppose  that  nature,  in  some  hidden 
alembic  within  the  mountain,  generates  the  water 
from  its  constituent  elements?  Its  source  would  not 
then  be  '  a  body  of  water.'  '  To  this  it  may  be  re- 
plied, first,  that  it  would  be  a  body  of  water,  no  mat- 
ter where  its  elements  were  combined.  But,  waiving 
that  point,  we  should  know  the  nature  of  the  cause, 
nevertheless.  We  should  know  with  absolute  cer- 
tainty that  within  that  hidden  alembic  certain  gases 
had  united,  in  certain  definite  proportions,  to  form 


330         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

the  water  that  constituted  the  source  from  which  the 
spring  was  derived.  If  an  analysis  of  the  waters  re- 
veals the  presence  of  organic  impurities,  we  know 
that  its  source,  or  its  channel,  was  polluted  by  organic 
impurities.  There  is  never  any  mistake  about  it, 
and  we  never  attribute  organic  impurities  to  inorganic 
matter.  The  logic  of  atheism  alone  is  equal  to  that. 
The  spring  of  water  teaches  another  lesson  to 
science  which  is  often  overlooked.  It  is  that  a 
stream  never  rises  higher  than  its  source.  This  is 
true,  not  only  of  flowing  water,  but  of  every  force  in 

-  nature."    That  is  to  say,  the  flowing  stream  is  a  sym- 

•  bol  in  that  respect  of  every  other  force.     Not  one 
of  nature's    forces,  as    developed   or   phenomenally 

I  manifested  on  this  planet,  equals  its  potential  energy 

,  as  it  exists  in  the  Cosmos.     Atheism  has  sought  to 

I  make  an  exception  of  the  greatest  of  all  —  the  mind 

energy  of  the  universe  —  by  locating  its  source  in  the 

:   inorganic  world.     But  there  are  no  exceptions  to  the 

laws  of  nature. 

This,  however,  is  a  digression.  The  point  I  wish 
to  illustrate  is  the  commensurableness  of  cause  and 
effect,  by  showing  that  science  commensurates  all 
the  facts,  laws,  principles,  and  elements  of  both  cause 
and  effect  in  that  simple  phenomenon  of  nature,  —  a 
spring  of  water.  They  are  all  interrelated  and  inter- 
dependent, but  not  more  so  than  in  any  and  every 
case  where  causes  operate  to  produce  effects. 

A  law  as  universal  as  the  law  of  gravitation  may 
now  be  formulated  thus  :  — 

All  the  causative  forces  of  nature  are  commensurable 
with  their  effects  or  phenomena. 

It  follows  that  something  of  the  nature  or  salient 


THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  HEREDITY.      331 

characteristics  of  every  causative  force  may  be  learned 
by  an  examination  and  study  of  its  visible  effects  or 
phenomena. 

In  the  mean  time  it  may  be  set  down  as  axiomatic 
that  Nature  never  erects  false  signals  or  guide-posts 
to  deceive  the  unwary  explorer  of  her  domains.  She 
never  erects  false  lights  upon  her  shores  to  lure  the 
voyager  in  search  of  truth  upon  the  rocks  and  break- 
ers of  error  and  falsehood,  j'acts  are  divine  revela- 
dons_addressed  to  the  common  understanding  of 
mankind,  and  reason^  is  their_diyinely  commissioned 
interpreter.  Every  fact  has  a  meaning,  and,  properly 
interpreted,  it  constitutes  an  advanced  step  in  the 
direction  of  ultimate  truth. 

It  will  now  be  seen  that  we  have  a  means  of  know- 
ing the  essential  character  of  that  potential  energy, 
that  causative  force,  which  produced  the  effect  or 
phenomena  of  mind  and  life  on  this  planet.  Under 
the  law  which  has  been  formulated,  and  which  may 
be  designated  as  the  law  of  commensurable  cause 
and  effect,  together  with  the  law  of  heredity,  we  may 
learn  the  nature  of  the  cause  of  mind  by  studying  its 
effects  or  phenomena. 

We  know,  therefore,  — 

1.  That   it   is   a   mind   energy  or   force;    for  we 
observe   that  its  effects  or  phenomena  are  those  of 
mind. 

2.  It  is  an  organized,  conscious  intelligence;  for 
its  effects  are  organized,  conscious  intelligences. 

3.  It  is  a  creative  energy  (omnipotence),  for  its 
resultant  mind  organisms  possess  creative  powers. 

4.  It  is  a  constant  energy  or  force  tending  towards 
progressive   development;     for    its     resultant    mind 


332         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAAr. 

energy  constitutes   the  progressive  potential  of  all 
evolutionary  development. 

5.  It  possesses  an  intuitive  knowledge  of  all  truth 
that   is    essential  to  its   state    of  existence    (omnis- 
cience) ;  for  the  lowest  mental  organism  on  earth  is 
endowed  with   identical   powers,    differing    in   exact 
proportion  to  its  stage  of  development. 

6.  It  is  an  altruistic  intelligence  (a  God  of  love), 
for    the    instinct   of    altruism,    beginning   with    the 
monera,    dominates   the    world,  —  physical,    mental, 
moral,  and  religious. 

7.  It  is  an  intelligence  transmissible    by   inherit- 
ance ;  for  that  is  the  only  method  by  which  mental 
faculties  are  transmitted  in  the  organic  world. 

8.  Finally,  it  is  an   infinite    intelligence ;   for   the 
mental  faculties  of  the  lowest  order  of  animal  life,  by 
infinite   extension,  would    be    infinite  in  knowledge, 
power,  and  love. 

These  are  some  of  the  things  that  we  may  know 
of  the  nature  and  attributes  of  the  Great  First  Cause ; 
for  they  are  the  results  of  the  inductive  observation 
of  tangible  facts  that  cannot  be  accounted  for  on  any 
other  hypothesis.  They  are  not  conclusions  resulting 
either  from  intuition,  guesswork,  or  assumption. 
They  are  conclusions  which  must  of  necessity  be 
valid  if  the  facts  of  cause  and  effect  are  interrelated. 
The  only  way  to  cast  a  shade  of  doubt  upon  their 
validity  would  be  by  demonstrating  that  cause  and 
effect  have  no  necessary  relation  to  each  other. 

And  this,  in  fact,  is  the  logical  attitude  of  atheism 
regarding  this  question. 

We  might  pause  here  and  rest  our  case  upon  the 
overwhelming  preponderance  of  evidence  thus  far 


THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  HEREDITY..     333 

adduced  in  behalf  of  Christian  theism.  But  I  should 
fail  to  do  justice  to  those  eminent  scientists  who  have 
thus  far  furnished  the  facts  for  my  induction,  did  I 
neglect  to  give  due  attention  to  the  strongest  array 
of  facts  and  arguments  that  they  have  presented  in 
support  of  the  general  theory  of  organic  evolution. 
I  shall  pay  due  regard  to  those  facts  and  arguments 
for  two  good  and  sufficient  reasons.  The  first  is 
that  they  present  conclusive  evidence  of  the  truth  of 
the  doctrine  of  evolution ;  and  the  second  is  that  the 
same  facts  and  arguments  leave  absolutely  nothing  to 
be  desired  in  the  way  of  proof  of  the  truth  of  the 
theistic  hypothesis. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

HUMAN  ONTOGENY  AND  PHYLOGENY. 

The  Strongest  Argument  in  Favor  of  the  Evolutionary  Hypothesis.  — 
The  Analogical  Argument  from  Ontogeny  to  Phylogeny. — 
Haeckel's  Great  Work  Demonstrative  of  its  Validity.  —  But  he 
was  in  Search  of  Atheistic  Arguments.  —  He  found  None.  — 
On  the  Contrary,  he  found  Proofs  of  Theism.  —  General  Remarks 
in  re  the  Analogical  Argument.  —  Invalid  unless  the  Phenomena 
and  Laws  are  the  Same.  —  The  Present  Argument  Valid.  — 
Ontogeny  a  Repetition  of  Phylogeny.  —  Phylogeny  the  Cause  of 
Ontogeny  under  the  Law  of  Heredity.  —  The  Primordial  Germ 
and  the  Germinal  Cell  Identical  in  Character  and  Attributes. — 
The  Importance  of  this  Fact.  —  The  Later  Forms  of  the  Human 
Embryo  correspond  with  the  Salient  Steps  in  Phylogeny.  —  The 
Law  of  Heredity  the  Cause  of  the  Correspondence.  —  Evidence 
Comparable  to  that  of  Successive  Geological  Strata.  —  Man 
recognizes  his  Earliest  Earthly  Ancestor  by  its  Resemblance  to 
the  Form  which  marked  his  Earliest  Embryotic  Form.  —  Haeckel's 
"  Fundamental  Law  of  Organic  Evolution  "  formulated.  —  The 
Debt  that  Science  owes  to  Haeckel.  —  The  Pains  he  has  taken 
to  develop  Facts  that  disprove  his  Anti-Theistic  Beliefs.  —  His 
Method  of  accounting  for  his  Facts  not  so  Ingenuous,  or  he 
has  failed  to  see  their  Trend.  —  His  Invitation  to  Philosophers.  — 
His  Promised  Rewards  to  those  who  will  explain  Ontogeny 
phylogenetically.  —  His  own  Conclusions  arrived  at  only  by 
ignoring  his  Facts.  —  Next  Chapter  will  explain  Ontogenetic 
Facts  phylogenetically,  and  carry  the  Analogical  Argument  to 
its  Legitimate  Conclusion. 

TF  any  intelligent  evolutionist,  who  is  familiar  with 
-*-  the  leading  facts  and  arguments  in  support  of 
the  theory  of  organic  evolution,  were  asked  what 
is  the  strongest  and  most  convincing  array  of  facts 
and  arguments  in  favor  of  that  doctrine,,  he  would 
most  likely  answer  that  it  is  the  analogical  argument 


HUMAN  ONTOGENY  AND  PHYLOGENY.     335 

from  the  ontogeny  of  the  germinal  cell  to  the_ph}^- 
Jogeny  of  the  primordial  germ.  If  he  be  familiar 
with  the  best  literature  on  the  subject,  he  will  doubt- 
less cite  Professor  Haeckel's  great  work  on  "  The 
Evolution  of  Man  "  as  the  first,  and  in  many  respects 
the  best,  treatise  in  which  that  particular  branch  of 
the  subject  is  exhaustively  treated,  and  in  such  a  man- 
ner as  to  make  it  popularly  available.  Its  sub-title 
is  "  A  Popular  Exposition  of  the  Principal  Points  of 
Human  Ontogeny  and  Phylogeny." 

I  have  already  spoken  of  its  high  standing  in  the 
scientific  world ;  and  I  have  availed  myself  of  many 
of  the  facts  which  he  was  the  first  to  promulgate,  and 
of  which  he  was  the  first  to  recognize  the  scientific 
value./  It  is  true  that  I  have  given  an  interpretation 
to  the  facts  relating  to  the  monera  that  is  diametri- 
cally opposed  to  his,  and  I  have  invested  them  with  a 
higher  scientific  value  than  he  did.  He  was  in  search 
of  the  hypothetical  connecting  link  between  organic 
life  and  inorganic  chemical  compounds.  In  other 
words,  he  was  in  search  of  evidence  to  prove  that 
life  and  mind  originated  from  something  that  is  the 
very  opposite  of  both  life  and  mind.  He  was,  in 
fact,  in  pursuit  of  evidence  to  prove  that  there  is  no 
God. 

He  found  no  such  evidence.  On  the  contrary,  he 
brought  to  light  a  series  of  facts  exactly  adapted  to 
the  uses  of  his  opponents.  And  I  undertake  to  say 
that  if  the  combined  hosts  of  Christian  believers  could 
unite  their  wisdom,  they  could  not  imagine  a  series  of 
facts  better  adapted  than  his  to  prove  the  existence 
of  the  God  of  Christian  faith,  and  at  the  same  time  to 
prove  that  God  rules  this  universe  by  means  of  im- 


336        THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

mutable  law.  The  world  can  never  repay  the  debt  of 
gratitude  it  owes  to  Professor  Haeckel  for  the  fear- 
lessness and  scientific  integrity  exhibited  in  promul- 
gating a  series  of  facts  that,  unless  blinded  by 
prejudice,  he  must  have  known  were  wellnigh  demon- 
strative of  the  theory  that  he  repudiated.  He  has 
given  us  the  facts  so  minutely  detailed  and  so  amply 
verified  that  atheism  can  neither  deny  their  existence 
nor  their  theistic  significance. 

But  that  is  not  the  only  service  Professor  Haeckel 
has  rendered  to  Christian  theism.  He  has  furnished 
arguments  as  well,  and  his  arguments  are  backed  by 
an  invincible  phalanx  of  facts.  I  refer  particularly  to 
his  analogical  argument  from  ontogeny  to  phylogeny. 
It  is  true  that  he  employs  it  solely  for  the  purpose 
of  demonstrating  the  truth  of  the  evolutionary  hy- 
pothesis ;  but,  as  I  shall  undertake  to  show,  it  is  as 
clearly  demonstrative  of  theism  as  it  is  of  evolution. 
In  point  of  fact,  it  leaves  nothing  to  be  desired  in  the 
way  of  evidence  for  either  evolution  or  theism. 

Before  proceeding  to  the  consideration  of  the  argu- 
ment from  ontogeny,  I  desire  to  make  a  remark  in 
reference  to  analogical  arguments  in  general.  In  one 
of  my  former  works  l  I  ventured  to  animadvert  upon 
the  practice,  which  has  obtained  for  many  years 
among  certain  polemics  of  high  degree,  which  con- 
sists in  the  reckless  employment  of  the  analogical 
',  argument.  This  form  of  reasoning  is  abused  prob- 
i  ably  more  than  any  other,  partly  owing  to  its  plau- 
sible character,  and  partly  to  a  lack  of  power  to 
i  discriminate  between  fanciful  illustration  and  proof, 
\  between  poetic  license  and  scientific  demonstration. 
1  See  "  A  Scientific  Demonstration  of  the  Future  Life,"  chap.  ii. 


HUMAN  ONTOGENY  AND  PHYLOGENY.     337 

One  of  the  most  common  examples  of  the  abuse  of 
this  form  of  argument  is  shown  in  reasoning  from  the 
metamorphosis  of  the  caterpillar  into  the  butterfly 
up  to  an  immortal  life  for  man.     It  is  invalid,  for  the 
simple  reason  that  the  laws  which  govern  the  one  are 
not   identical  with  those  which  obtain  in  the  other. 
The  rule  is  that  no  analogical  argument  is  valid  from^ 
a  scientific,  or  inductive,  point  of  view  unless  it  can    ,' 
be  shown  that  the  laws  governing  the  phenomena  ob- 
served are  identical  with  those  of  the  subject-matter^ 
under  investigation. 

I  recall  the  attention  of  the  logical  reader  to  this 
rule  for  the  purpose  of  reminding  him  that  Professor 
Haeckel's  analogical  argument  from  ontogeny  to 
phylogeny  possesses  the  highest  degree  of  validity; 
for  the  laws  are  obviously  the  same.  There  is,  in- 
deed, a  causal  relation  between  them,  as  will  be  seen 
later  on. 

The  general  proposition  is  stated  in  the  language 
of  Professor  Haeckel,  as  follows :  — 

"  The  history   of  the   evolution   of  organisms   consists " 
of  two  closely  connected  parts :    ontogeny,  which  is  the  \ 
history  of  the  evolution  of  individual  organisms ;  and  phy- 
logeny, which  is  the  history  of  the  evolution  of  organic 
tribes.     Ontogeny  is  a  brief  and   rapid  recapitulation  of  f 
phylogeny,  dependent  on  the   physiological   functions   of 
heredity  (reproduction)  and  adaptation  (nutrition).     The  ' 
individual   organism   reproduces    in  the   rapid   and   short  ' 
course   of  its   own  evolution   the  most  important  of  the  I 
changes  in  form  through  which  its  ancestors,  according  to 
the  law  of  heredity  and  adaptation,  have  passed  in  the 
slow  and  long  course  of  their  paleontological  evolution."  *    - 

1  The  Evolution  of  Man,  vol.  i.  pp.  i,  2. 
22 


338         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

Here,  then,  we  have  a  clear  and  comprehensive 
statement  of  one  of  the  greatest  and  most  significant 
facts  in  nature.  Ontogeny  is  the  history  of  the 
development  or  evolution  of  individual  organisms. 
Human  ontogeny  is  the  history  of  the  development 
or  evolution  of  the  germinal  cell  of  man  from  the 
moment  of  conception  to  maturity.  Human  phylog- 
eny  is  the  history  of  the  evolution  of  the  primordial 
germ  from  the  moneron  to  man.  Phylogeny  is_re- 
peated  in  ontogeny.  That  is  to  say,  the  human 
embryo  begins  its  history  as  a  unicellular  organism, 
microscopic  in  size,  and  possessing  all  the  salient 
characteristics  of  the  lowest  unicellular  organism 
known  to  science.  In  point  of  fact,  there  is  a  short 
period  when  the  human  embryo  reverts  to  a  form- 
less, structureless  condition.  Of  this  our  author 
remarks :  — 

"  At  present,  therefore,  the  majority  of  observers  assume 
that  between  the  original  nucleated  egg-cell  and  the 
known  nucleated  parent-cell  there  is  a  stage  in  which  there 
is  no  real  cell-kernel  or  nucleus,  and  in  which,  therefore, 
the  form  value  of  the  whole  organic  individual  is  no  longer 
that  of  a  true  nucleated  cell,  but  that  of  a  non-nucleated 
cytode,  i.  e.  a  simple  protoplasmic  body  in  which  no  true 
cell-kernel  (nucleus)  is  to  be  found."  l 

Of  the  importance  of  this  fact  Professor  Haeckel 
has  this  to  say :  — 

"  We  regard  it  as  a  fact  of  the  greatest  interest  that  the 
human  child,  like  that  of  every  other  animal,  is,  in  this 
first  stage  of  its  individual  existence,  a  non-nucleated  ball 
of  protoplasm,  a  true  cytode,  a  homogeneous,  structureless 

i  Op.  cit.  p.  178. 


HUMAN  ONTOGENY  AND  PHYLOGENY.     339 

body,   without   different    constituent   parts.     For   in    this  r 
'  monerula-form  '  the  structure  of  the  animal,  and  thus  of 
the  human  organism,  is  of  the  simplest  conceivable  nature.  / 
The  simplest  known  organisms,  and  at  the  same  time  the 
simplest  conceivable  organisms,  are  the  '  monera,'  most  of 
which  are  minute,  microscopic,  and  formless  bodies,  con- 
sisting of  a  homogeneous  substance,  of  an  albuminous  or  ' 
mucous  soft  mass,  and  which,  though  they  are  not  com- 
posed of  diverse  organs,  are  yet  endowed  with  all  the  vital 
qualities  of  an  organism.     They  move,  feed,  and  reproduce  i 
themselves  by  division.     These  monera  are  of  great  impor- 
tance, owing  to  the  fact  that  they  afford  the  surest  starting- 
point  for  the  theory  of  the  origin  of  life  on  our  earth.     We  I 
shall  presently  have    further  occasion  to  point  out   their 
significance.     Here  we  need  only  give  due  weight  to  the 
very  remarkable  fact  that,  both  in  germ  history  and  tribal  i 
history,  the   animal   organism    begins   its   evolution   as   a 
structureless  mucous  ball.     The  human  organism,  like  that 
of  the  higher  animals,  exists  for  a  short  time  in  this  sim- 
plest conceivable  form,  and  its  individual  evolution  com- ' 
mences  from  this  simplest  form.     The  entire  human  child, 
with  all  its  great  future  possibilities,  is  in  this  stage  only  a 
small,  simple  ball  of  primitive  slime  (protoplasm)."  l 

I  have  been  thus  particular  in  quoting  somewhat  ^ 
at   length   what    Professor    Haeckel   has   to   say   in 
reference  to  the  beginning  of  the  ontogenetic  history  I 
of  the  embryo  of  man  for  the  reason  that  I  regard  it 
as  possessing  greater  evidential  value  than  any  other  ^ 
stage  of  development.     The  particular  reasons  will 
more  fully  appear  hereinafter. 

The   later  forms  of  the  embryo  corresponding  to 
those  of  the  phylogenetic  series  cannot  be  described 

1  Op.  cit.  p.  178  et  seq. 


340        THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

in  detail  in  a  work  like  this,  and  the  curious  reader 
must  be  referred  to  the  work  from  which  I  have 
quoted.  It  must  be  said,  however,  that  the  series 
of  gradients  is  necessarily  far  from  complete.  The 
history  of  untold  ages  of  years  cannot  be  repeated  in 
all  its  details  within  the  space  of  three  quarters  of 
a  year.  Nevertheless,  the  evidential  value  of  what 
we  have  is  not  in  the  least  impaired ;  for  the  salient 
features  are  reproduced  with  such  circumstantiality 
of  detail  as  to  leave  no  room  for  rational  doubt  of 
the  fact  thatjiuman  phylogeny  is  repeated  in  human 
ontogeny.  Moreover,  this  being  true,  it  follows  that 
a  causal  relation  exists  between  the  two.  That  is  to 
say,  phylogeny  is  the  cause  of  ontogeny;  and  this 
in  turn  is  demonstrative  of  the  never-failing  potency 
and  the  far-reaching  significance  of  the  law  of 
heredity. 

We  have  already  seen  that,  at  the  beginning  of 
the  embryotic  life  of  man,  the  beginning  of  organic 
life  on  the  earth  is  faithfully  and  minutely  repeated ; 
and  we  know  that  the  culmination  of  both  histories  is 
identical.  That  is  to  say,  Jiuman  phylogeny  began 
with  the  moneron  and  culminated  in  man ;  and 
human  ontogeny  begins  with  the  monerula  and 
culminates  in  a  completely  ^formed  human  being1. 
This  of  itself  constitutes  presumptive  evidence  of 
the  truth  of  the  hypothesis.  If,  therefore,  such  of 
the  intermediate  steps  in  the  ontogenetic  series  as 
are  shown  to  exist  are  even  approximately  the  same 
as  those  in  the  phylogenetic  series,  the  evidence  is 
conclusive.  More  especially  is  this  true  if  the  in- 
termediate steps  do  not  transcend  their  regular  order 
as  they  occur  in  the  phylogenetic  series.  In  other 


HUMAN  ONTOGENY  AND  PHYLOGENY.     34! 

words,  the  value  of  the  evidence  is  greatly  enhanced 
by,  if  indeed  it  does  not  depend  upon,  the  fact  that  the 
forms  as  they  are  developed  in  the  ontogenetic  series 
are  never  reversed  in  the  order  of  their  development 
in  the  phylogenetic  series. 

Thus,  the  human  embryo  at  a  certain  period  has^ 
essentially  the  anatomical  structure  of  the  lancelet, 
later  of  a  fish,  and    in  subsequent   stages   those  of 
amphibian  and    mammal   forms.     Moreover,  in   the ' 
further  evolution  of  these  mammal  forms  those  first, 
appear   which   stand   lowest   in   the   series,  namely, 
forms  allied  to  the  beaked  animals  (OrnitJwrhynchus} ;  . 
then  those  allied  to  pouched  animals  (Marsupialia), 
which  are  followed  by  forms  most  resembling  apes ; 
till  at  last  the  peculiar  human  form  is  produced  as 
the   final    result.1     The    point  is   that   the   order   of , 
development  of  these  forms  in  the  ontogenetic  series 
is  never  reversed ;   and  that,  as  far  as  they  go,  they  \ 
correspond  to  the  orderly  sequence  of  their  develop- 
ment  in  the  phylogenetic   series.     This  of  itself  is  j 
demonstrative   of   the    causal   relation    between   the 
two  series  and  the  dominating  influence  of  the  law_ 
of  heredity  in  the  process  of  organic  evolution. 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  the  evidence  in  this  case" 
is  analogous  in  character  to  that  by  which  we  deter- 
mine the  orderly  sequence  of  geological  strata.     No  j 
one    place    has   yet   been  discovered    on   our   earth 
where  all  the    geological  strata   are  present  in  the  I 
order  in  which  they  were  deposited.     Nevertheless 
we  know  the  order  in  which  they  were  formed  by 
comparison    of    the    formations   shown    in   different 
localities;  and   we   know   the  order  was   never   re*  , 
1  See  "  The  Evolution  of  Man,"  vol.  i.  p.  3. 


342         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

versed,  for  the  reason  that  we  never  find  an  older 
stratum  above  a  later  one.  Thus,  we  never  find  the 
Cambrian  overlying  the  Silurian,  or  the  Devonian 
underlying  either  the  Cambrian  or  the  Silurian.  The 
latter  may  be  absent  in  a  given  locality,  but  it  will 
never  be  found  anywhere  either  above  the  Devo- 
nian or  below  the  Cambrian.  Hence  the  geologist 
,  knows  beyond  the  shadow  of  a  doubt  the  orderly 
sequence  of  geological  formations;  and  with  these 
data  he  can  "  reconstruct  the  past  and  predict  the 

^  future." 

In  like  manner  the  scientific  evolutionist  knows 
his  ground.  He  knows,  from  a  comparative  analysis 
of  phylogenetic  and  ontogenetic  forms,  that  a  causal 
relation  must  exist  between  the  two ;  and  that  con- 
viction becomes  a  certainty  when  he  knows  that  the 
order  in  which  those  forms  are  developed  in  the 
two  series  is  exactly  the  same.  And  he,  too,  is  thus 
enabled  to  reconstruct  the  past  and  predict  the 

i  future;  for  he  recognizes  in  this  law  the  "one  touch 
of  nature "  that  literally  "  makes  the  whole  world 
kin."  He  finds  the  key  to  his  own  pedigree  in  his 
own  ontogeny;  and  he  finds  its  details  recorded, 

\  with  unerring  certainty  and  exactitude,  in  his  own 
phylogeny.  Step  by  step  he  traces  his  ancestry 
back  through  myriads  of  forms  and  aeons  of  time 
to  the  very  beginning  of  organic  life ;  and  he  recog- 
nizes his  earliest  earthly  ancestor  by  its  identity  in 
form  and  substance  with  that  which  marked  the  first 

^   stage  in  his  own  embryotic  life  and  development. 

From  this  induction,  backed  by  innumerable  facts, 
each  pointing  toward  the  one  conclusion,  he  infers 
a  law,  —  "  the  fundamental  law  of  organic  evolution" 


HUMAN  ONTOGENY  AND  PHYLOGENY.     343 

as  Haeckel  emphatically  puts  it;  "or  more  briefly, 
the  first  principle  of  biogeny"  l 

The  following  is  Professor  Haeckel's  formal  state- 
ment of  the  law :  — 

~v~ 

"This  fundamental  law,  ...  on  the  recognition  of  \ 
which  depends  the  thorough  understanding  of  the  history 
of  evolution,  is  briefly  expressed  in  the  proposition  that  • 
the  history  of  the  germjs aji_epitqme  of  the  history  of  the 
descent ;  or,  in_other  words,  that  ontogeny  is  a  recapitu- 
lation of  pjiylogeny ;  or,  somewhat  more  explicitly,  that 
the  series  of  forms  through  which  the  individual  ^organism 
Basses  during  its  progress_from  the  egg  cell_  to  its  fully 
developed  state  is  a  J>rief^  compressed  reproduction  qf 
the  long  series_of  forms  through  which  the  animal  ances- 
tors of  that  organism  (or  the  ancestral  forms  of  its  species) 
have  passed  from  the  earlies^jaeriods  of  so-called  organic 
creaticm  down  lo_the_presejat  time. 

"The  causal  nature  of  the  relation  which  connects 
the  history  of  the  germ  (embryology  or  ontogeny)  with 
that  of  the  tribe  (phylogeny)  is  dependent  on  the  phe-  ' 
nomena  of  heredity  and  adaptation.  When  these  are 
properly  understood,  and  their  fundamental  importance 
in  determining  the  forms  of  organisms  recognized,  we 
may  go  a  step  further,  and  say :  phylogenesis  is  the 
mechanical  cause  of  ontogenesis.  The  evolution  of  the  . 
tribe,  which  is. dependent  on  the  laws  of  heredity  and 
adagtation^effects  all  the  events  which  take  place  in  the 
course  of  the  evolution  of  the  germ  or  embryo."* 

I  have  thus  briefly  set  forth,  mostly  in  the  language 
of  its  ablest  exponent,  the  most  important  fact  in  the 
history  of  organic  evolution,  as  well  as  the  strongest 

1  "  Biogeny  "  is  the  history  of  organic  evolution  in  its  widest  sense. 
a  Op.  cit.  vol.  i.  pp.  6,  7. 


344         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

argument  in  support  of  the  evolutionary  hypothesis. 
It  is  but  simple  justice  to  Professor  Haeckel  to  say 
that  his  facts  are  beyond  dispute.  Their  development 
is  the  result  of  years  of  herculean  labor  and  consci- 
entious research;  and  his  love  of  truth  for  its  own 
sake  is  demonstrated  by  the  infinite  pains  he  has 
taken  to  develop  facts,  even  though  they  disprove 
his  anti-theistic  beliefs.  His  conclusions,  so  long  as 
he  keeps  within  the  domain  of  organic  evolution,  are 
also  eminently  just  and  legitimate.  That  is  to  say, 
from  the  moneron  to  man,  inclusive  of  both,  no  true 
scientist  will  gainsay  either  his  facts  or  his  conclusions. 
It  is  only  when  he  attempts  to  go  back  of  the  mo- 
neron in  search  of  efficient  causes  that  he  fails  to  see 
the  true  significance  of  the  facts  that  he  has  brought 
to  light.  It  is  there  that  his  ingenuousness  ceases  to 
be  conspicuous,  excepting  in  his  confession  that  he 
has  adopted  a  conclusion  which  is  unsustained  by 
any  fact  or  phenomenon  of  nature.  This,  however,  I 
have  already  pointed  out.  I  now  propose  to  inquire 
what  further  conclusions  are  legitimately  derivable 
from  the  great  law  of  interrelated 'and  interdepen- 
dent phylogeny  and  ontogeny.  I  am  encouraged  to 
do  so  because  of  the  learned  author's  invitation  to 
the  philosophical  world,  to  say  nothing  of  the 
promised  results.  In  the  closing  chapter  of  his  great 
work  he  makes  this  encouraging  observation :  — 

"The  speculative  philosopher  who  will  take  possession  of 
the  facts  of  ontogeny  and  explain  them  phylogenetically 
(according  to  that  law),  will  introduce  a  greater  advance 
in  the  history  of  philosophy  than  has  been  made  by  the 
NN  greatest  thinkers  of  all  previous  centuries." l    r  £ 
1  Op.  cit.  vol.  ii.  p.  454. 


HUMAN  ONTOGENY  AND  PHYLOGENY.     345 

It  must  be  admitted  by  the  most  apathetic  that  the 
prize  is  a  glittering  one  and  well  worth  striving  for; 
but,  unfortunately,  I  am  barred  out  of  the  race  by  the 
professor's  terms.  In  the  first  place,  he  qualifies  the 
conditions  by  declaring,  later  on,  that  "  it  cannot  be 
doubted  that  these  facts,  if  properly  weighed  and 
judged  without  prejudice,"  will  lead  to  the  professor's 
own  atheistic  conclusions.  Besides,  I  am  not  a 
"  speculative  philosopher;"  and  the  promised  reward 
is  limited  to  that  class  of  thinkers.  Moreover,  the 
professor  has  exhibited  to  us,  in  his  own  proper 
person,  a  specimen  of  the  kind  of  speculative  phi- 
losopher that  is  required  for  his  purposes.  Judging 
from  the  sample,  and  the  task  to  be  performed,  it 
requires  a  philosopher  who  will  adopt  Professor 
Haeckel's  facts  as  his  premises  and  ignore  them  in 
his  conclusions.  In  other  words,  there  is  no  way  of 
arriving  at  the  professor's  conclusions  in  relation  to 
the  origin  of  life  on  this  planet  except  by  completely 
ignoring  his  facts.  This  I  cannot  consent  to  do, 
even  for  the  brilliant  rewards  naturally  flowing  from 
the  introduction  of  a  new  element  of  confusion  and 
uncertainty  into  the  speculative  philosophy  "  of  all 
previous  centuries."  I  shall,  nevertheless,  "  take 
possession  of  the  facts  of  ontogeny  and  explain  them 
phylogenetically,"  as  I  understand  them,  with  special 
reference  to  their  bearing  upon  the  question  of  the 
origin  of  life. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

THE  THEISTIC  ARGUMENT  FROM   ONTOGENY  AND 
PHYLOGENY. 

Professor  Haeckel's  Premises  accepted  for  more  than  his  Estimated 
Valuation.  —  No  Dispute  as  to  Facts.  —  The  Matter  in  Dispute 
relates  to  Deductions  from  Laws  agreed  upon.  —  The  Invisible 
World  not  outside  the  Domain  of  Law.  —  All  Natural  Forces 
Invisible.  —  Deductions  from  Known  Laws  always  Legitimate.  — 
Facts  agreed  upon  by  Atheists  and  Theists  :  I.  Ontogeny  repeats 
Phylogeny. — 2.  Phytogeny  causes  Ontogeny.  —  3.  Heredity  the 
Controlling  Law.  —  4.  Heredity  controls  Ontogeny  and  Phylogeny. 

—  5.  Potentialities  of   Manhood  reside  in  the   Germinal  Cell   of 
Man. — 6.  Also  in  the  Primordial  Germ.  —  It  follows  that  (i)  the 

,  Laws  are  the  same ;  (2)  that  Pre-existent  Conditions  were  the 
same;  (3)  that  Causes  were  Identical  in  Kind.  —  The  Ontogenetic 
and  Phylogenetic  Series  begin  alike  with  the  Moneron  and  end  in 
Man.  —  Each  has  Identical  Powers  and  Mental  Attributes.  — Con- 
ditions and  Causes  being  the  same,  if  we  find  the  Cause  for  one 
Condition  we  can  safely  infer  the  other.  —  We  know  why  Poten- 
tials of  Manhood  reside  in  the  Germinal  Cell  of  Man.  —  Because 
they  were  inherited  from  an  Antecedent  Mind,  —  that  of  the  Parent. 

—  Corollary:    The  Potentialities  of  Manhood  reside  in  the  Mo- 
neron because  they  were  inherited  from  an  Antecedent  Mind,  — 
that  of  the  Infinite   Parent.  —  No  other  Conclusion  logically  Le- 
gitimate.—  A  Denial  is  a  Repudiation  of  all  Known  Laws  relating 
to  it,  especially  that   of  Heredity.  —  If  Nature  is  constant,  the 
Moneron  inherited  its  Divine  Potentialities  from  the  Divine  Mind. 

—  This  is  the   Analogical   Argument  carried  to  its   Legitimate 
Conclusion.  —  The  Analogy  is  Incomplete  without  it,  and  there- 
fore Invalid.  —  What  does  Atheism  offer  in  Refutation  ?  —  Spon- 
taneous Generation.  —  A  Theory  without  a  Fact  to  support  it.  — 
An   Abandonment   of  Induction.  —  A   Guess  and   a   Hope   that 
Somebody  may  sometime  discover  (or  manufacture)  a  Fact  to  sus- 
tain the  Atheist's  Guesses.  —  Darwin's  Guess  and  Huxley's  Hope. 

—  Haeckel's  Guess  without  Hope. —  Ward's  Guess  and  Hope.— 


ONTOGENY,  PHYLOGENY,  AND   THEISM.     347 

Specimens  of  Atheistic  "Induction."  —  Nevertheless  the  World 
owes  them  much ;  notwithstanding  a  Relapse  toward  Fetichism, 
they  builded  better  than  they  knew. — Their  Facts  prove  the  The- 
.  ory  of  Evolution,  but  they  also  prove  the  Existence  of  the  God 
of  Christian  Faith. 

WE  have  now  before  us  all  the  salient  facts  and 
phenomena  of  organic  evolution  that  are 
necessary  to  enable  us  to  reach  a  definite  conclusion 
in  regard  to  the  question  of  the  origin  of  life  on  this 
planet.  The  fundamental  law  of  organic  evolution 
has  been  stated  in  the  language  of  its  ablest  expo- 
nent, and  accepted  as  correct  in  every  sense  of  the 
word.  There  is,  therefore,  no  disagreement  either  as 
to  the  facts  from  which  the  law  has  been  induced,  or 
as  to  the  correctness  of  the  induction. 

It  must  be  remembered,  however,  that  the  facts 
and  the  law,  as  thus  agreed  upon  by  and  between 
the  contending  parties,  all  pertain  to  the  subject  of 
organic  evolution  as  they  are  manifested  in  phenom- 
ena in  the  visible  organic  world,  beginning  with  the 
monera  and  culminating  in  man.  The_  matter  in 
Dispute  lies  outside  the  realm  of  what  is  cognizable 
by  the  senses.  But  it  is  not  outside  the^  dominion  of 
law.  It  is  not  outside  the  domain  of  the  law  which 
has  been  found  to  exist,  and  which  has  been  formu- 
lated in  the  preceding  pages  of  this  book.  It  is  purely 
a  matter  of  deduction  from  that  known  fundamental 
law  of  organic  evolution,  that  first  principle  of  biog- 
eny,  to  which  all  questions  pertaining  to  the  sub- 
ject-matter must  be  referred.  The  fact  that  a  force 
is  invisible  does  not  remove  it  from  the  domain 
of  law.  All  the  forces  of  nature  are  invisible;  and 
yet  we  harness  them  to  our  uses  and  formulate  their 
laws.  The  mind  energy  that  animates  the  monera  is 


348         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

invisible ;  but  it  is  the  creature  of  law.  And  so  is  the 
source  from  which  the  moneron  derived  its  life  and 
mind,  whether  it  resided  in  the  rocks  and  mud  of  the 
inorganic  earth  or  emanated  from  an  infinite  ante- 
cedent mind.  The  fact  that  a  causal  relation  existed 
between  the  two  brings  them  under  the  law  of  "  corn- 
mensuration,"  1  and  hence  under  the  fundamental  law 
of  organic  evolution..  That  is  to  say,  since  the  causal 
forces  of  nature  are  always  necessarily  commensurable 
with  their  terrestrial  modes  or  forms  of  manifestation, 
it  follows  that  they  are  governed  by  the  same  laws. 
We  may,  therefore,  deduce  from  the  known  law  all 
legitimate  conclusions  relating  to  antecedent  causes 
or  consequent  effects,  with  the  same  confidence  that 
we  should  feel  if  all  the  forces  of  nature  were  visible. 

Before  proceeding  to  draw  our  conclusions  it  will 
be  in  order  to  enumerate  the  points  of  agreement 
between  atheistic  and  theistic  evolutionists.  In  that 
way  the  issue  between  them  will  be  developed  and 
clearly  defined,  and  no  time  will  be  wasted  in  the 
discussion  of  irrelevant  questions. 

The  essential  points  are  the  following 

Inductions. 

1.  That   the  history   of  the   development   of  the 
human  germinal  cell,  from  the  monerula  to  the  fully 
developed  human  entity,  is  a  recapitulation*  of  the 
history  of  the  development  of  the  primordial  germ, 
from  the  moneron  to  man ;   or,  in  other  words,  that 
ontogeny  is  a  repetition  of  phylogeny. 

2.  That  phylogeny  is  the  cause  of  ontogeny. 

1  See  chapter  vii. 

"     c?T~        ff*1**£v-*  JLf      * 


ONTOGENY,  PHYLOGENY,   AND   THEISM.     349 

3.  That  the  law  of  heredity  is  the  agency  through 
which  phylogeny  controls  ontogeny. 

4.  That   the  law    of  heredity  is  universal   in  its 
application  to  the  subject-matter,  beginning  with  the 
moneron  and  culminating  in  man,  on  the  one  hand, 
and,  on  the  other,  beginning  with  the  germinal  cell 
and  culminating  in  a  fully  developed  human  entity. 


Deductions. 

1.  That  the  potentialities  of  manhood  reside  in 
the  germinal  cell  of  man. 

2.  That  the  potentialities   of  manhood  reside  in 
the  primordial  germ. 

This,  perhaps,  is  as  far  as  it  is  prudent  to  go  in 
assuming  the  points  of  agreement  between  atheism 
and  theism.  I  have  ventured  thus  far  only  because 
the  foregoing  propositions  are  all  essential  to  the 
doctrine  of  organic  evolution,  and  they  have  all 
been  insisted  upon  as  fundamental  by  the  atheistic 
evolutionists.  The  next  step  would  be  some  such 
proposition  as  that  what  is  true  of  ontogeny  is  also 
true  of  phylogeny,  or  that  nature  is  constant,  or 
that  nature's  laws  admit  of  no  exceptions ;  each  of 
which  propositions  atheism  tacitly  denies  when  it 
seeks  to  account  for  the  origin  of  life  on  the  theory 
of  spontaneous  generation.  We  must,  therefore, 
now  proceed  independently  to  draw  conclusions  from 
the  premises  that  have  been  agreed  upon. 

The  first  proposition  is  that,  if  it  is  true  that  ontog- 
eny, by  virtue  of  the  law  of  heredity,  is  a  repetition 
of  phylogeny,  it  follows  that  the  laws  of  the  two  are 
identical. 


350        THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

No  one  can  deny  this  proposition  without  impeach- 
ing the  law  of  heredity  itself;  for  it  is  but  a  restate- 
ment of  the  very  essence  of  that  law.  Its  truth 
is,  in  fact,  self-evident. 

Secondly,  since  the  law  of  ontogeny  is  identical 
with  the  law  of  phylogeny,  and  jince^  identical  results 
have  ensued,  it  follows  that  the  pre-cxistent  condi- 
tions were  identical. 

The  truth  of  this  proposition  also  is  self-evident. 

Thirdly,  since  the  law,  the  results,  and  the  condi- 
tions were  each  identical,  it  follows  that  the  causes 
of  those  conditions  were  also  identical  in  character 
and  kind.  L*/£-^£  e->-— f^^>  <*M.  J~>  U^^*  ja^^t^^  •><*-. 

No  person  can  deny  this  proposition  without  im- 
peaching the  constancy  of  nature.  The  universal 
experience  of  mankind  may  be  invoked  to  verify  it. 
"  Like  causes  produce  like  effects."  "  Identical  con- 
ditions are  brought  about  by  causes  identical  in 
kind."  These  are  axioms,  and  they  apply  with  un- 
varying exactitude  in  all  the  broad  realm  of  natural 
causes  and  effects.  They  are,  in  fact,  but  varying 
forms  of  expressing  that  universal  postulate,  —  the 
constancy  of  nature. 

Now,  let  us  see  how  these  propositions  apply  to 
the  subject-matter  under  consideration. 

In  making  this  examination  we  will  again  return 
to  the  beginning  of  organic  life,  for  the  reason  that, 
as  has  often  been  repeated,  the  nearer  we  approach 
to  its  source  the  more  clearly  will  the  observable 
facts  and  phenomena  reveal  the  essential  character 
of  that  source.  If  facts  are  to  be  found  in  the 
phylogenetic  series  that  point  to  spontaneous  gener- 
ation as  the  source  and  origin  of  mind  and  life,  we 


ONTOGENY,   PHYLOGENY,  AND   THEISM.     351 

must  expect  to  find  them  there;  "for,"  in  the  lan- 
guage of  Haeckel,  "  the  monera  actually  stand  on  the 
very  boundary  between  organic  and  inorganic  natural 
bodies."  On  the  other  hand,  if  facts  are  to  be  found 
in  either  ontogeny  or  phylogeny  that  point  to  a 
divine  origin  of  mind  and  life,  we  must  still  expect 
to  find  it  at  the  beginning  of  organic  life,  for  the 
monera  also  stand  on  the  very  boundary  between 
the  realms  of  mind  and  matter.  Literally,  the 
monera  stand  nearer  to  God  than  any  other  sentient 
creatures. 

Now,  we  have  already  learned  from  Professor 
Haeckel  that  this,  the  beginning  of  organic  life  in 
the  phylogenetic  series,  is  exactly  repeated  in  the 
beginning  of  human  ontogeny.  We  have  also  learned 
that  the  salient  features  of  phylogeny  are  repeated  in 
orderly  sequence  in  ontogjeny.  And,  finally,  that 
the  culmination  in  each  of  the  two  series  is  identical 
with  that  in  the  other.  In  short,  they  both  begin 
with  the  moneron  and  culminate  in  a  human  being. 
We  also  learn,  from  the  same  high  authority,  that  the 
law  of  heredity  constitutes  the  connecting  link  be- 
tween the  two  series,  and  hence  phylogeny  is  the 
cause  of  ontogeny.  Being  thus  inseparably  interre- 
lated by  causal  connections,  it  follows  that  both  series 
are  controlled  by  the  same  law.  This,  then,  disposes 
of  my  first  proposition. 

The  second  proposition  is  that  since  the  law  and 
the  results  are  the  same,  it  follows  that  the  pre- 
existing conditions  were  identical. 

The  conditions  referred  to  are  those  existing  at  the 
beginning  alike  of  phylogeny  and  ontogeny.  Those 
essential  to  the  present  inquiry  are  the  following: 


352         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

1.  An  unorganized,  undifferentiated,  homogeneous 
mass  of  protoplasm. 

2.  An  unorganized,  undifferentiated,  homogeneous 
mass  of  protoplasm  endowed  with  a  mind. 

3.  An  unorganized,  undifferentiated,  homogeneous 
mass  of  protoplasm  endowed  with  a  mind  in  which 
inhere  the  potentialities  of  manhood. 

These  are  the  conditions  that  are  common  to  the 
beginnings  of  the  two  series  of  events.  They  are  the 
basic  conditions  upon  which  depend  all  the  other 
steps  in  the  two  series^  The  physical  conditions  are 
the  same  in  both  ;  and  necessarily  the  mental  condi- 
tions are  identical,  or  the  final  results  could  not  be 
the  same.  We  know,  therefore,  that  the  conditions 
are  the  same,  for  we  know  that  the  final  result  —  a 
human  being  —  is  identical. 

Thus  far  no  scientific  evolutionist,  atheistic  or 
theistic,  will  gainsay  either  my  propositions  or  my 
conclusions ;  for  they  are  all  elementary  deductions 
from  the  fundamental  principle  of  organic  evolution, 
as  laid  down  by  its  ablest  exponent. 

The  third  proposition  is  that,  the  conditions  being 
the  same,  it  follows  that  the  causes  of  those  condi- 
tions were  identical  in  character  and  kind.  This 
proposition,  as  before  remarked,  no  person  can  deny 
without  impeaching  the  constancy  of  nature. 

The  conditions  for  which  we  are  in  search  of  a 
cause  are  stated  above.  The  salient  feature,  which 
includes  the  others,  is  the  fact  that  the  mind  with 
which  the  moneron  and  the  monerula  are  each  en- 
dowed contains  the  potentialities  of  manhood.  The 
question  is,  What  is  the  cause  of  this  condition? 
Science  tells  us  that  it  exists  alike  in  both,  and  that 


ONTOGENY,   PHYLOGENY,   AND    THEISM.     353 

it  produces  identical  results  in  phylogeny  and  on- 
togeny, namely,  manhood.  How  does  it  happen  that 
these  globules  of  protoplasm  are  thus  endowed  with 
such  wonderful  potentialities  ?  Science  tells  us 
that  they  are  exactly  alike  in  every  particular.  The 
chemical  constituents  of  their  bodies  are  the  same ; 
they  are  equally  deficient  in  structural  organism ; 
their  minds  have  the  same  powers,  attributes,  and 
potentialities ;  and  the  grand  results  of  the  exercise 
of  those  powers  and  the  development  of  those  poten- 
tialities are  identical,  for  they  culminate  in  the  same 
human  entity.  It  is,  in  fact,  impossible  to  imagine 
conditions  more  nearly  alike  or  more  certainly  the 
result  of  causes  identical  in  character  and  kind. 

It  follows  that  if  we  can  ascertain  the  cause  in  one 
case  we  shall  know  with  equal  certainty  the  exact 
nature  of  the  cause  in  the  other.  There  will  be  no 
guesswork  about  it,  no  soaring  into  the  regions  of 
speculative  philosophy  in  search  of  some  fanciful 
theory  of  causation  without  facts  to  sustain  it. 

Fortunately  it  so  happens  that  we  know  why  it  is 
that  the  germinal  cell  of  man,  the  monerula,  the  ini- 
tial organism  in  human  ontogeny,  is  endowed  with 
the  potentialities  of  manhood. 

We  know  that  it  is  because  the  parent  from  which 
it  emanated  was  endowed  with  the  attributes  and 
qualities  of  manhood. 

In  other  words,  we  know  that  it  emanated  from  an 
antecedent  mind  which  was  endowed  with  the  identical 
attributes  and  powers  that  were  developed  from  the 
initial  organism. 

In  short,  we  know  that  its  powers  and  potentialities 
were  due  to  the  law  of  heredity. 

23 


354        THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

Now,  let  us  carry  the  analogy  back  to  the  initial 
mind-organism  in  the  phylogenetic  series.  I  submit 
that  there  is  but  one  legitimate,  logical  conclusion, 
and  that  is  that  — 

The  mind  of  the  moneron  derived  its  attributes,  pow- 
ers, and  potentialities,  rmder  the  law  of  heredity,  from 
an  antecedent  mind  which  was  endowed  with  the  iden- 
tical attributes  and  powers,  differing  only  in  degree, 
that  were  developed  from  the  moneron. 

To  put  the  crucial  point  of  the  argument  in  a 
nutshell,  we  may  say,  — 

Why  is  it  that  the  potentialities  of  manhood  inhere 
in  the  germinal  cell  of  man  ?  Simply  because  it 
inherited  them  from  a  mind  endowed  with  the  actual 
faculties  of  manhood,  namely,  the  mind  of  the  finite 
parent.  -  *"  -*-^-'  *-*  tf*^  , 

Again,  why  is  it  that  the  potentialities  of  manhood 
inhere  in  the  primordial  germ?  Simply  because  it 
inherited  them  from  a  mind  possessing  the  actual 
faculties  of  manhood,  namely,_the  mind  of  the 
Infinite  Parent.  Q*+»S+*~f~t~+^~*-^  *  <i<rU-WAik  * 

I  submit  that,  in  the  language  of  Haeckel,  this  is 
"  taking  possession  of  the  facts  of  ontogeny  and 
explaining  them  phylogenetically  according  to  that 
law." 

I  submit,  further,  that  there  is  no  other  logical, 
scientific,  or  reasonable  phylogenetic  interpretation 
of  the  facts  of  ontogeny. 

Any  other  possible  interpretation  of  those  facts 
involves  the  utter  repudiation  of  the  law  of  heredity 
at  the  very  point  where  that  law  is  most  in  evidence, 
namely,  at  the  beginning  of  organic  life  on  this  planet. 
It  is  most  in  evidence  at  that  point  in  organic  history, 


ONTOGENY,   PHYLOGENY,  AND   THEISM.     355 

for  upon  every  germinal  cell,  at  the  beginning  of  its 
ontogenetic  history,  is  stamped  the  indubitable  evi- 
dence of  its  descent  from  the  moneron.  All  through 
the  aeons  of  time  that  have  elapsed  since  the  begin- 
ning of  phylogenetic  history  the  law  of  heredity  has 
asserted  its  supremacy,  its  constancy,  and  its  univer- 
sality; and  millions  of  facts  occur  every  day,  each 
one  of  which  bears  testimony  to  this  universal  truth. 
If  Nature,  as  science  instructs  us,  is  the  great  teacher 
of  order  and  uniformity ;  if  she  exhibits  no  false  pro- 
portions and  sounds  no  discords;  if  she  sets  up  no 
false  signals  to  deceive  the  unwary ;  if  cause  and  effect 
bear  any  relation  to  each  other,  —  if,  in  short,  Nature 
is  constant,  we  must  suppose  that  the  law  of  heredity 
did  not  originate  in  the  moneron.  We  must  suppose 
that  it,  too,  was  a  creature  of  that  law;  and  that  its 
wonderful  faculties  and  divine  potentialities  were 
inherited  from  a  divine  mind. 

This,  then,  is  the  analogical  argument  from  ontog- 
eny to  phylogeny  carried  to  its  legitimate  conclu- 
sion. If  the  analogy  is  perfect  from  man  back  to  the 
moneron,  as  atheists  very  properly  insist;  if  the  law 
governing  the  two  series  of  events  is  identical,  as 
atheistic  science  has  very  clearly  demonstrated,  —  I 
submit  that  the  analogy  is  not  complete,  and  is  there- 
fore invalid,  until  it  is  carried  back  to  the  origin  and 
cause  of  the  life  and  mind  of  the  moneron  as  well 
as  that  of  the  monerula.  As  I  stated  in  the  begin- 
ning, the  analogical  argument  in  this  case  is  legiti- 
mate, valid,  and  conclusive,  because  the  phenomena 
are  the  same  and  the  law  is  identical.  I  still  adhere 
to  that  conclusion  and  insist  upon  it.  But  I  also 
insist  that  its  evidential  value  depends  upon  its 


356         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN, 

completeness,  and  that  it  is  clearly  not  complete  until 
it  is  carried  as  far  in  phylogeny  as  it  is  in  ontogeny. 

What,  then,  has  atheism  to  offer  in  refutation  of 
this  induction?  Nothing,  absolutely  nothing,  but  the 
theory  of  spontaneous  generation.  As  I  have  re- 
peatedly dwelt  upon  the  entire  absence  of  facts  to 
sustain  that  theory,  I  will  content  myself  with  a  gen- 
eral summary  of  the  salient  features  of  the  atheistic 
attitude  on  this  and  the  subsidiary  question  as  to 
the  origin  of  species.  I  have  shown  that  Darwin's 
theory  that  natural  selection  "  originated "  species 
was  merely  an  attempt,  in  behalf  of  atheism,  to  sus- 
tain the  theory  that  physical  organism  antedated 
mind,  and  was,  in  fact,  the  cause  of  mind.  I  have 
also  shown,  by  Haeckel's  demonstrations  and  Hux- 
ley's logic,  that  exactly  the  opposite  is  true,  —  that 
in  all  the  broad  realm  of  sentient  life,  mind  not  only 
antedates  physical  organism,  but  is  the  cause  of  all 
structural  changes  in  organism. 

This,  however,  I  have  no  intention  to  dwell  upon 
here.  I  mention  it  merely  for  the  purpose  of  inviting 
renewed  attention  to  the  fact  that  Huxley  admits 
that  Darwin  did  not  present  one  fact  to  prove  that 
natural  selection  ever  originated  a  species.  On  the 
contrary,  the  vast  array  of  facts  which  Mr.  Darwin  so 
ably  marshalled  to  prove  his  general  theory  of  evolu- 
tion are  all  against  the  theory  that  natural  selection 
originated  species.  It  preserved  species  (the  fittest), 
but  it  did  not  originate  them. 

Nevertheless,  while  his  friend,  Professor  Huxley, 
felt  compelled  to  tell  the  truth  about  his  failure  to 
substantiate  his  hypothesis,  he  (Huxley)  was  fain  to 
express  the  hope  that  somebody,  on  some  future 


ONTOGENY,   PHYLOGENY,  AND   THEISM.     357 

occasion,  would  show  that  a  new  species  could  be 
originated  by  artificial  selection,  and  thus  give  his 
friend  Darwin's  theory  one  fact  to  rest  upon.1 

Again,  Professor  Haeckel's  theory  of  spontaneous 
generation  rests  upon  the  same  hopeful  foundation. 
He  admits  that  there  are  no  facts  to  prove  his 
theory  —  that  all  experimental  facts  are  against  it  — 
and  he  is  not  quite  sure  that  it  can  ever  be  experi- 
mentally proven,  "  unless  great  difficulties  are  over- 
come." But  he  very  ably  overcomes  the  difficulty 
thus  encountered  by  questioning  the  sanity  of  those 
who  do  not  accept  his  theory.2  It  is  presumable, 
however,  that  he  entertains  the  hope  that  somebody, 
some  day,  may  be  able  to  wrest  a  sign  of  life  from 
inorganic  matter.  But  he  does  not  venture  to  ex- 
press that  hope  in  words. 

Last,  but  by  no  means  least,  we  have  our  own 
great  American  scientist,  Professor  Lester  F.  Ward, 
who  is  also  filled  with  hope  for  the  future  of  the 
science  of  mind.  His  hope  is  in  chemistry;  and  he 
believes  that  somebody  will  some  day  be  able  to 
produce  the  phenomena  of  life  and  mind  by  the 
process  of  "  recompounding,"  or  "  aggregation,"  of 
albuminous  compounds.3  To  be  sure,  it  has  never 
yet  been  done,  and  there  are,  of  course,  no  facts  to 
show  that  it  ever  can  be  done ;  but  hope  springs 
eternal  in  the  atheistic  breast  just  the  same. 

These  are  but  specimens  of  the  boasted  "  inductive 
methods  "  of  the  leading  atheistic  scientists  of  Eng- 
land, America,  and  Germany,  when  dealing  with  the 

1  Darwiniana,  p.  75. 
3  The  Evolution  of  Man,  vol.  ii.  p.  32. 

8  Status  of  the  Mind  Problem:  a  Lecture  delivered  in  the 
National  Museum,  Washington,  1894. 


358         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

problems  of  the  human  mind  and  soul;  more  espe- 
cially when  the  question  of  the  origin  of  mind  and 
life  is  involved  in  their  researches. 

If  science  stands  for  anything,  it  stands  for  truth. 
If  the  names  I  have  mentioned  suggest  anything  to 
those  who  know  of  their  work,  it  is  science  and  the 
inductive  methods  of  research.  They  have  written 
their  names  upon  the  scroll  of  fame  in  imperishable 
characters ;  and  it  was  because  of  their  unswerving 
devotion  to  truth  as  it  is  found  revealed  in  the  facts 
of  nature.  They  set  out  in  search  of  the  origin  of 
life,  and  when  they  found  man's  earliest  earthly 
ancestor,  they  imagined  that  they  had  reached  the  final 
goal  of  their  ambition.  But  it  was  there  that  they 
forever  abandoned  those  methods  of  inductive  re- 
search that  had  carried  them  so  successfully  through 
the  mazes  of  evolutionary  history.  Was  it  because 
there  were  no  facts  upon  which  to  base  an  inductive 
hypothesis  of  the  origin  of  that  life  and  mind  which 
they  found  so  conspicuously  in  evidence  in  man's 
earliest  earthly  ancestor?  Clearly  not.  And  yet 
nothing  in  the  history  of  scientific  research  is  more 
clearly  evident  than  that  they  utterly  abandoned  and 
repudiated  the  inductive  method  at  that  crucial  point 
in  the  history  of  their  search  for  the  origin  of  life. 
And  what  did  they  substitute  as  a  compensation  to 
science  for  the  repudiation  of  the  only  method  of 
research  by  which  man  can  be  sure  that  he  knows 
anything?  They  substituted  a  purely  speculative 
hypothesis,  the  mere  statement  of  which  constitutes 
a  rednctio  ad  absurdum,  —  a  theory  that  suggests 
nothing  but  a  recrudescence  of  fetichism  divested  of 
its  redeeming  features. 


ONTOGENY,  PHYLOGENY,  AND   THEISM.     359 

Why  it  is  that  atheistic  scientists  have  chosen  to 
ignore  all  that  vast  array  of  facts  that  point  so  unerr- 
ingly to  a  divine  origin  of  life  and  mind,  I  leave 
others  to  judge.  There  are  but  two  hypotheses  to 
choose  from.  One  is  that  it  was  because  they  had 
the  logical  capacity  to  see  that  the  facts  all  conspired 
to  prove  the  divine  origin  of  mind ;  and  the  other  is 
that  they  had  not  that  capacity. 

However,  the  world  owes  them  a  debt  of  gratitude 
for  demonstrating  the  evolutionary  hypothesis  by 
means  of  facts  that  also  prove  the  divine  origin  of 
life  and  mind. 

If  those  facts  establish  the  truth  of  the  evolutionary 
hypothesis,  they  are  equally  demonstrative  of  the 
theistic  hypothesis.  And  there  is  no  possible  way 
of  evading  or  denying  the  latter,  except  by  repudiat- 
ing the  law  of  heredity,  the  law  of  cause  and  effect, 
the  validity  of  the  inductive  method  of  research, — 
in  short,  there  is  no  possible  way  of  evading  the 
theistic  interpretation  of  those  facts  except  by  the 
repudiation  of  every  rule  or  axiom  of  scientific, 
logical,  or  rational  investigation  by  which  the  validity 
of  conclusions  can  be  established. 

I  have  now  briefly  outlined  the  salient  facts  of 
organic  evolution  which  bear  upon  the  question  of 
the  divine  origin  of  life  and  mind  on  this  planet. 
The  intelligent  reader  will  not  fail  to  note  that  in  the 
presentation  of  the  crucial  facts  and  arguments  I 
have  not  travelled  outside  of  the  data  furnished  by 
the  leading  evolutionary  scientists.  That  is  to  say,  I 
have  not,  in  the  later  chapters,  intruded  the  new 
psychology  into  the  argument,  nor  drawn  upon  it 
for  data,  even  for  the  purpose  of  fortifying  the 


360        THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

theistic  interpretation  of  the  facts  of  organic  evolu- 
tion. I  have  pursued  this  course,  as  indicated  in  the 
introductory  chapter  of  Part  II.  for  the  purpose  of 
exhibiting  the  strength  of  the  theistic  argument  when 
based  alone  upon  the  facts  admitted  by  atheistic  evo- 
lutionists; thus  avoiding  possible  prejudices  against 
the  new  psychology. 

Nor  will  the  intelligent  Christian  reader  fail  to  note 
that  the  most  important  conclusion  derivable  from 
what  has  been  said  is  yet  to  be  stated.  And  that  is 
that,  if  our  conclusions  are  valid  regarding  the  divine 
origin  of  life.it  follows  that  the  truth  of  the  Christian 
theory  of  the  essential  divinity  of  man  is  proved  be- 
yond a  doubt. 

It  now  remains  to  show  what  light  is  thrown  by  the 
new  psychology  upon  man's  divine  pedigree. 


CHAPTER  X. 

IN  THE  IMAGE  OF  GOD. 

The  True  Basis  of  Reconciliation  of  Religion  and  Science.  —  Con- 
sists in  a  Truthful  Interpretation  of  the  Facts  of  Nature.  —  There 
are  not  Two  Orders  of  Truth,  one  Scientific  and  the  other 
Religious.  —  The  Old  Prophet's  Declaration. —  Man  was  made  in 
the  Image  of  God.  —  The  Common  Anthropomorphic  Interpre- 
tation.—  Due  to  a  Defective  Psychology.  —  God  was  conceived 
as  an  Infinite  Reasoner.  —  Otherwise  an  Infinite  Inquirer  after 
Facts  and  a  Guesser  at  Conclusions. — The  Divine  Likeness  in 
the  Faculties  of  the  Subjective  Mind.  —  Even  its  Limitations 
Suggestive  of  Divine  Attributes.  —  The  Significance  of  its  Limita- 
tions.—  Its  Faculties  tabulated.  —  Intuition  an  essentially  Divine 
Attribute. — Its  Importance  in  the  Organic  World.  —  Deductive 
Reasoning  the  Concomitant  of  Intuition. — They,  with  Memory, 
constitute  the  Intellectual  Faculties  of  the  Subjective  Mind. — 
Extended  by  Infinity,  they  would  be  Omniscience.  —  Inconceivable 
Rapidity  of  Subjective  Mentation.  —  Prodigious  Feats  of  Memory. 
—  Illustrative  Cases.  —  Dynamic  Energy  of  the  Subjective  Mind.  — 
Telekinesis. — Extended  to  Infinity,  it  would  be  Omnipotence. — 
New  Testament  Examples  of  Dynamic  Force  of  the  Soul. — 
Telepathy.  —  Its  Significance.  —  Distance  no  Obstacle  —  Infinite 
Extension  would  constitute  Omnipresence.  —  A  Channel  of  Com- 
munication between  God  and  Man.  —  Prayer  and  Inspiration. — 
The  Natural  Emotions.  —  Their  Altruistic  Character.  —  Infinite 
Extension  would  mean  Infinite  and  Universal  Love.  —  Thus  the 
Faculties  of  the  Soul,  infinitely  extended,  give  us  an  Omniscient, 
Omnipotent,  Omnipresent  God  of  Infinite  and  Universal  Love. — 
The  Highest  Possible  Conception  of  Deity.  —  The  Conception 
not  Anthropomorphic.  —  It  neither  limits  nor  measures  God. — 
His  Qualities  alone  revealed.  —  But  it  shows  that  Man  was  made 
in  the  Image  of  God.  —  This  much  Man  may  know  of  God. — 
Not  that  it  reveals  Human  Attributes  in  God,  but  Divine  Attri- 
butes in  Man.  —  Man's  Place  in  Nature.  —  His  Obligations  and 
Duties. 


I 


HAVE  now  outlined  the  leading  facts  of  organic 
evolution   which   conspire   to    prove   beyond  a 


362         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE  OF  MAN. 

doubt  the  existence  of  an  infinite  intelligence — a 
divine  mind  —  which  is  the  origin  and  the  great  first 
cause  of  life  and  mind  on  this  planet.  By  the  aid  of 
those  great  scientists  to  whom  the  world  is  indebted 
for  the  facts  and  arguments  which  demonstrate  the 
essential  truth  of  the  theory  of  organic  evolution,  I 
have  been  able  to  trace  the  descent  of  man  back  to 
a  divine  ancestry.  I  might  pause  here;  for  it  is 
sufficiently  evident,  from  what  has  already  been  said, 
not  only  that  a  divine  intelligence  exists,  but  that  an 
intimate  personal  relationship  exists  between  that 
divine  intelligence  and  mankind.  It  is,  in  fact, 
sufficiently  evident  that  God  is  our  Father,  and  that 
it  was  therefore  a  calm  statement  of  a  literal  truth, 
and  "not  an  Oriental  extravagance  or  a  figure  of 
speech,  that  Jesus  employed  when  he  proclaimed 
the  fatherhood  of  God  and  the  brotherhood  of  man. 
The  inerrant  intuitions  of  the  Man  of  Nazareth  are 
thus  made  manifest  by  the  inductions  of  modern 
science;  and  thus  the  great  fundamental  principle  of 
the  Christian  religion  is  shown  to  rest  upon  a  firm 
scientific  foundation  as  well  as  upon  the  authority  of  a 
divine  intuition  or  revelation.  It  is  shown  that  there 
are  not  two  antagonistic  orders  of  truth  in  the  uni- 
verse, —  one  scientific  and  the  other  religious ;  but 
that,  on  the  contrary,  religious  truth  will  not  and 
cannot  be  antagonized  by  true  science.  It  is  only 
by  a  false  and  vicious  interpretation  of  the  facts  of 
nature  that  religious  truth  is  antagonized.  True 
science  is,  therefore,  the  handmaid  of  true  religion ; 
and  the  reconciliation  of  religion  and  science  only 
awaits  a  true  interpretation  of  the  phenomena  of 
nature. 


IN  THE  IMAGE   OF  GOD.  363 

There  is,  however,  another  sublime  intuition  that 
remains  to  be  considered.  It  was  by  an  older 
prophet  than  Jesus;  but  it  is  of  equal  interest  and 
importance  with  that  which  we  have  been  consider- 
ing. It  is,  indeed,  a  corollary  of  the  fact  of  divine 
Fatherhood,  and,  under  the  law  of  heredity,  it  must 
be  equally  true  and  verifiable.  I  refer  to  the  decla- 
ration of  the  prophet  of  old  that  "man  was  made  in 
the  image  of  God." 

I  am  quite  well  aware  of  the  anthropomorphic 
interpretation  of  that  declaration  that  has  been 
given  to  it  by  the  enemies  of  the  Christian  religion. 
I  am  also  aware  that  atheism  has  been  wont  to 
contribute  to  the  gayety  of  its  cult  by  picturing  to 
the  imagination  a  man  of  colossal  proportions  —  a 
physical  and  intellectual  monster  —  as  the  true 
interpretation  of  the  prophet's  conception  of  God. 
Of  course,  as  all  but  atheists  are  aware,  the  words 
were  spoken,  not  of  physical  man,  but  of  mental 
attributes.  But  even  this  higher  conception  did  not 
entirely  remove  it  from  the  charge  of  gross  anthro- 
pomorphism so  long  as  the  crude  ideas  of  the  old 
psychology  were  imported  into  it  and  made  a  part  of 
the  conception.  The  old  psychology  bore  it  in  upon 
us,  with  perpetual  insistence,  that  the  highest  intel- 
lectual power  with  which  man  is  invested  is  that  of 
inductive  reasoning.  The  conception  of  God  was, 
therefore,  necessarily  limited  by  the  prevailing 
ideas  of  the  powers  of  man.  The  highest  possible 
conception  of  God,  therefore,  under  the  old  psycho- 
logical ideas,  was  that  of  a  being  endowed  with 
infinite  reasoning  powers.  Inductive  reasoning,  as 
I  have  often  remarked,  is  merely  a  method  of  in- 


364        THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

quiry ;  and  a  very  slow  and  laborious  method  it  is. 
It  is  a  systematic  effort  to  find  out  something  of 
which  we  are  ignorant.  Extending  that  faculty  to 
infinity  does  not  change  its  character  nor  divest  it 
of  its  limitations.  A  God  of  infinite  reason,  there- 
fore, would  still  be  a  searcher  after  facts  and  a 
guesser  at  conclusions.  It  is  obvious  that  a  concep- 
tion of  Deity  based  upon  man's  inductive  powers  is 
of  a  being  of  limited  intelligence,  and  hence  open 
to  the  charge  of  anthropomorphism. 
;,  I  repeat,  therefore,  what  I  have  so  strongly  in- 
sisted upon  in  the  earlier  chapter,  of  this  book,  that 
(  the  brain  is  a  physical  organ  —  a  product  of  organic 
evolution  —  especially  adapted  to  a  physical  environ- 
ment  and  to  no  other;  and  that  its  powers  of  induc- 
tion are  no  more  a  part  of  man's  divine  heritage 
than  are  his  powers  of  deglutition.  The  divine  part 
of  man  is  his  subjective  mind  —  the  mind  of  his 
immortal  soul  —  which  exists  independently  of  the 
body  or  any  of  its  physical  organs  ;  which  is  literally 
a  spark  of  the  divine  intelligence,  —  literally  a  part 
of  the  mind  of  God. 

It  is  to  this  part  of  man  that  I  now  wish  to  invite 
the  attention  of  my  readers,  asking  them  to  bear  in 
mind  the  declaration  of  the  prophet  that  man  was 
made  in  the  image  of  God;  and  of  Jesus,  that  we 
are  the  sons  of  God.  I  do  so  for  a  twofold  purpose, 
namely,  — • 

First,  to  emphasize  what  has  already  been  proven 
by  the  facts  of  organic  evolution  relating  to  the 
divine  origin  of  life;  and 

Secondly,  to  draw  the  legitimate  deductions  as  co 
the  character,  attributes,  and  powers  of  God. 


IN  THE  IMAGE   OF  GOD.  365 

That  is  to  say,  having  abundantly  proved  from  the 
facts  of  organic  evolution  that  man  is  the  offspring 
of  God,  it  is  now  logically  legitimate  to  analyze  the 
faculties  of  the  offspring  for  the  purpose  of  ascer- 
taining something  of  the  attributes  and  powers  of 
the  ancestor.  Under  the  law  of  heredity  this  is  not 
only  a  legitimate  logical  process,  but  it  is  one  that 
insures  approximately  correct  results.  Not  that  it 
is  given  to  finite  minds  to  comprehend  the  Infinite 
Intelligence  or  to  fathom  its  mysteries;  but  that  he 
is  not  "utterly  unknowable"  by  his  children. 

Before  proceeding  to  an  analysis  of  the  faculties 
of  the  subjective  mind,  I  wish  to  say  a  word  in  regard 
to  its  so-called  limitations  resulting  from  the  law  of 
suggestion.  I  have  heretofore  pointed  out  the  fact 
that  the  law  of  suggestion  is  a  necessary  limitation 
of  the  independence  of  the  soul  during  its  sojourn 
in  a  physical  environment,  for  the  reason  that,  dur- 
ing the  transitional  period  from  savagery  to  civiliza- 
tion, the  emotions  require  the  regulating  influence 
of  reason.  That  influence,  of  course,  could  only  be 
acquired  and  maintained  by  the  reasoning  mind  by 
virtue  of  such  a  limitation  of  power  as  the  law  of 
suggestion  imposes  upon  the  subjective  mind.  This 
limitation  continues,  as  I  have  shown,  until  con- 
science becomes  an  instinctive  emotion  of  the  soul ; 
after  which  the  subjective  mind  assumes  a  normal 
ascendancy.  I  have  drawn  the  conclusion,  from  all 
the  facts  in  the  case,  that  the  subjective  mind  was 
created  with  a  special  adaptation  to  a  higher  life  — 
an  environment  of  truth  —  where  no  false  sugges- 
tions can  reach  it.  I  have  also  shown  that  the  so- 
called  law  of  suggestion  is  but  another  way  of  stat- 


366        THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAM 

ing  the  fact  that  the  subjective  mind  is  not  endowed 
with  the  power  or  faculty  of  inductive  reasoning,  and 
that  that  apparent  limitation  is  due  to  the  fact  that, 
in  the  higher  life  to  which  it  is  destined,  the  faculty 
of  intuition  is  the  dominant  intellectual  faculty. 
The  latter  faculty  enables  its  possessor  to  acquire  a. 
knowledge  of  the  laws  of  its  being  and  its  environ- 
mental conditions  by  immediate,  intuitive  percep- 
tion ;  and  this,  of  course,  would  render  the  inductive 
faculty  useless  and  superfluous, —  in  fact,  impossible. 

I  repeat  these  observations  here  merely  for  the 
purpose  of  inviting  renewed  attention  to  the  fact 
that  an  omniscient  intelligence  is  necessarily  inde- 
pendent of  the  use  of  inductive  reasoning,  the  latter 
being  merely  a  method  of  inquiry  by  a  limited,  finite 
intelligence. 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  the  very  limitations  of 
the  powers  of  the  subjective  mind  proclaim  its 
divine  origin  and  give  promise  of  its  ultimate 
destiny.  They  constitute,  in  fact,  indubitable  evi- 
dence that,  in  the  highest  sense  of  the  expression, 
"man  was  made  in  the  image  of  God." 

Now,  let  us  examine  systematically  the  faculties 
of  the  subjective  mind  of  man,  with  a  view  to  finding 
what  further  evidence  they  afford  of  his  divine  origin 
and  likeness,  but  more  especially  with  a  view  to 
finding  what  conceptions  of  the  attributes  and  powers 
of  God  may  arise  from  a  knowledge  of  those  of  his 
children. 

To  facilitate  such  an  examination,  I  append  below 
a  table  exhibiting  in  systematic  order  all  of  the 
purely  subjective  faculties.  The  right-hand  column 
shows  the  faculties  as  they  actually  exist  in  man. 


IN  THE  IMAGE   OF  GOD. 


367 


The  left-hand  column  shows  what  they  would  be  by 
infinite  extension  without  a  change  in  their  essen- 
tial characteristics.  In  other  words,  the  right-hand 
column  exhibits  man's  subjective  faculties  as  they 
exist;  and  the  left-hand  column  shows  the  concep- 
tion of  Deity  which  is  necessarily  derivable  from 
a  knowledge  of  their  existence  and  their  divine 
origin :  — 


God. 

Man. 

Omniscience 

Instinct  or  Intuition. 
Deductive  Powers  (potentially  Perfect). 
Memory  (potentially  Perfect). 

Omnipotence 

Telekinetic  Energy. 

Omnipresence 

Telepathy. 

Infinite  Love 

Natural  Emotions. 

A  few  words  will  further  explain  and  justify  this 
table  and  its  implications. 

At  the  head  of  the  list,  as  beseems  its  godlike 
potency,  is  intuition,  the  potentialities  of  which  can 
be  adequately  described  only  by  the  employment  of 
terms  that  express  the  highest  attribute  of  omni- 
science, —  the  power  of  apprehending  essential  truth 
antecedent  to  and  independent  of  reason,  experience, 
or  instruction.  It  was  by  the  exercise  of  this  faculty 
that  the  prophet  of  old  was  enabled  to  grasp  that 
most  fundamental  of  all  psychological  truths,  —  that 


368         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

"man  was  made  in  the  image  of  God."  Men  have 
called  it  "inspiration;"  and  certain  it  is  that  it  is 
the  basis  of  all  that  we  know  of  inspiration.  It  is 
the  instantaneous  perception  of  fundamental  and 
necessary  truth.  Its__first  manifestation  on  earth 
was  in_the  jnoneron,  and  science  named  it  "in- 
stinct." In  all  the  lower  animals  it  is  thus  desig- 
nated. In  man  it  is  named  "intuition."  By  infinite 
extension  it  becomes  omniscience.  It  is  the  one 
faculty  possessed  by  the  human  soul  that  proclaims 
the  divine  pedigree  of  man  in  terms  that  cannot  be 
misunderstood.  Without  it  animal  life  would  have 
perished  on  the  threshold  of  the  organic  world. 
Abolish  it  from  the  universe,  and  the  animal  world 
would  perish  in  a  generation,  and  God  would  cease 
to  be  omniscient.  It  is  the  intelligence  behind 
creative  energy,  and  it  is  the  preserver  of  sentient 
life  everywhere. 

The  next  faculty  on  the  list  is  that  of  deductive 
reasoning.  It  is  the  inseparable  concomitant  of 
intuition.  The  latter  grasps  the  law  by  instanta- 
neous perception,  and  the  former,  with  the  same 
inconceivable  rapidity  of  mentation,  deduces  all 
legitimate  conclusions  and  consequences,  near  and 
remote.  Indeed,  the  processes  of  mentation  in  the 
subjective  mind  are  so  inconceivably  rapid  that  it  is 
impossible,  in  cases  of  genuine  intuition,  to  know 
where  the  work  of  intuition  ends  and  the  process  of 
deduction  begins. 

Again,  we  are  reminded  of  the  attributes  of  omnis- 
cience, and  we  are  enabled  to  form  a  finite  concep- 
tion of  the  means  by  which  God  knows  the  past, 
present,  and  future.  He  knows  the  past  by  means  of 


IN  THE  IMAGE   OF  GOD.  369 

a  memory  that  is  absolute;  the  present  by  imme- 
diate cognition;  and  the  future  by  means  of  an  in- 
finite knowledge  of  laws  and  causes,  proximate  and 
ultimate,  and  infinite  powers  of  inerrant  deduction. 

The  next  on  the  list  is  the  potentially  perfect 
memory  of  the  subjective  mind.  Little  need  be 
said  on  this  subject  beyond  the  fact  that  it  is  an 
inherent  faculty  in  the  subjective  mind  of  man,  and 
that  it  is  necessarily  an  attribute  of  omniscience. 

Here,  then,  we  have  the  three  intellectual  facul- 
ties of  the  subjective  mind  of  man,  namely,  intui- 
tion, deduction,  and  memory,  all  potentially  perfect. 
That  is  to  say,  these  faculties  exist  in  the  subjective 
mind  of  man,  and  are  often  phenomenally  manifested 
in  such  a  way  as  to  reveal  their  wonderful  potentiali- 
ties, as  in  men  of  genius,  in  mathematical  and  musi- 
cal prodigies,  and  in  feats-  of  memory  far  beyond  the 
capability  of  the  objective  mind.  Thus,  the  intui- 
tive perception  of  the  laws  of  quantity  or  of  numbers 
is  shown  in  such  prodigies  as  Zerah  Colburn, 
Jedediah  Buxtone,  and  others;  and  deduction  enables 
them  to  give,  instantaneously,  the  exact  answer  in 
figures  to  the  most  intricate  mathematical  problems. 
Perfect  memory  is  revealed  in  such  prodigious  feats 
as  that  related  by  Coleridge  of  the  ignorant  servant- 
girl  who  repeated  whole  pages  of  Latin  and  Greek 
many  years  after  having  heard  her  master  read  those 
passages  aloud  in  a  room  adjoining  the  one  in  which 
she  was  engaged  in  household  work.  She  could  not 
even  read  her  own  language,  and  her  objective  mind 
took  no  note  of  what  she  heard ;  and  yet  every  word 
was  indelibly  impressed  upon  the  mind  of  the  soul, 
only  to  reappear,  years  after,  when  the  functions  of 

24 


370         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

the  brain  were  inhibited  by  disease  and  imminent 
dissolution.1 

Thus  is  revealed,  often  under  pathological  con- 
ditions, it  is  true,  the  latent  intellectual  capacities 
of  the  subjective  mind,  —  the  mind  energy  of  the 
human  soul.  It  goes  without  saying  that  what  is 
thus  revealed  in  one  mind  must  exist  potentially  in 
all  other  human  minds,  and  that  they  only  await 
proper  conditions  for  their  manifestation.  The 
essential  condition  being  the  inhibition  of  the  func- 
tions of  the  objective  mind,  it  follows  that  the  most 
perfect  conditions  under  which  those  powers  can 
reach  their  full  fruition  must  be  the  complete 
removal  of  the  clogs  of  our  earthly  investiture. 

This,  however,  is  a  digression.  Returning  to  the 
subject  under  immediate  consideration,  it  must  be 
evident  that  the  subjective  mind  of  man  is  endowed 
with  a  complete  intellectual  equipment  with  divine 
potentialities;  and  that  the  faculties  thus  shown  to 
exist  in  each  one  of  us  are  embryotic  omniscience. 
That  is  to  say,  the  same  faculties,  simply  by  infinite 
enlargement  and  extension  of  their  capacity,  with- 
out changing  their  essential  nature,  would  become 
omniscience. 

The  next  faculty  or  power  of  the  human  soul  to 
be  considered  is  what  I  have  designated  as  tele- 
kinetic  energy.  It  is  simply  the  power  to  move 
ponderable  bodies  without  physical  contact  or  me- 
chanical appliances.  I  am  aware  that  I  shall  run 
counter  to  the  prejudices  of  some,  and  transcend  the 
sphere  of  observation  of  many,  when  I  say  that  this 

1  For  further  particulars  of  these  cases,  see  "  The  Law  of  Psychic 
Phenomena"  and  authorities  therein  cited. 


,    IN  THE  IMAGE   OF  GOD.  371 

is  the  power  exercised  by  so-called  "  spirit  mediums  " 
when  they  cause  tables  or  other  ponderable  bodies 
to  be  levitated.  I  can  only  say  to  the  skeptical  that 
I  know  the  power  to  exist,  having  for  more  than 
thirty  years  of  my  life  pursued  the  investigation  of 
so-called  spiritistic  phenomena,  under  the  strictest 
test  conditions,  with  two  clearly  defined  objects  in 
view,  namely,  first,  to  ascertain  whether  the  alleged 
physical  phenomena  were  really  produced  by  super- 
normal means ;  and,  secondly,  for  the  purpose  of 
trying  to  find  the  underlying  principle  which  would 
correlate  all  psychic  phenomena.  Whether  I  have 
been  successful  in  the  latter  quest,  the  readers  of 
my  published  works  must  judge  for  themselves. 
But  as  to  the  first,  I  can  only'assure  my  readers  that 
I  have  applied  every  possible  scientific  test  to  nearly 
every  form  of  physical  phenomena,  especially  to 
that  of  the  levitation  of  ponderable  bodies  without 
physical  contact  or  mechanical  aids;  and  that  as  the 
result  of  my  researches  I  am  prepared  to  asseverate 
that  the  power  exists  in  the  subjective  mind  of  man 
to  cause  inanimate  matter  to  obey  his  will  rather 
than  the  law  of  gravitation.  The  only  wonder  to  my 
mind  is  that  any  one  who  cares  to  know  the  truth 
should  deny  the  fact,  since  it  is  so  easily  ascertained 
to  be  true  by  any  one  who  will  consent  to  conduct  a 
candid,  unprejudiced  investigation.  The  attitude 
of  denial  of  the  physical  phenomena  of  spiritism  is 
especially  inexplicable,  since  not  one  of  them  pos- 
sesses, in  itself,  any  evidential  value  whatever  for  or 
against  the  doctrine  that  spirits  of  the  dead  com- 
municate with  the  living.  This  is  a  logical  truism 
that  the  world  has  been  very  slow  to  learn. 


372         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

Believers  in  the  verity  of  the  New  Testament  rec- 
ords certainly  have  no  right  or  occasion  to  doubt 
the  existence  of  the  power  of  levitation,  since  Jesus 
walked  upon  the  water.  If  it  is  replied  that  he  was 
exceptionally  endowed,  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that 
Peter  did  the  same  thing.  And  the  words  of  reproof 
addressed  by  the  Master  to  Peter  when  he  began  to 
sink  clearly  indicated  the  source  of  the  power.  "  O 
thou  of  little  faith,  wherefore  didst  thou  doubt?" 
I  submit  that  a  volume  of  scientific  dissertation  could 
not  have  more  clearly  stated  the  fact  that  the  power 
arose  from  the  mental  attitude  of  the  individual,  and 
not  from  any  extraneous  source,  human  or  divine. 

I  have  been  thus  insistent  upon  the  recognition  of 
this  power  in  man,  for  the  reason  that,  while  it  pos- 
sesses no  evidential  value  whatever  in  favor  of  the 
spiritistic  hypothesis,  it  does  constitute  an  impor- 
tant link  in  the  chain  of  evidence  going  to  prove 
the  divine  origin  of  man  and  his  likeness  to  his  Om- 
nipotent Father.  A  word  will  make  my  meaning 
clear:  — 

This  power,  whether  it  emanates  from  spirits  of 
the  dead  or  spirits  of  the  living,  is  clearly  a  spiritual 
or  mental  force  or  energy.  It  is  an  energy  that 
moves  and  controls  matter  independently  of  physi- 
cal organism;  for  it  endows  inert  ponderable  sub- 
stances with  apparent  intelligence.  That  is  to  say, 
it  not  only  causes  ponderable  bodies  to  move,  but  to 
answer  questions  intelligently  by  prescribed  move- 
•  ments.  It  ejnanates,  therefore,  from  _spme_  intelli- 
gence jmdJsj^ojTtmlled  by  volition.  That  intelligence 
is  the  subjective  mind  of  man.  Embodied  or  dis- 
embodied, it  is  the  mind  of  a  humaii  soul. 


IN  THE  IMAGE  OF  GOD.  373 

It  is  obvious  that  this  power  or  energy  corresponds 
to  that  infinite  spiritual  energy  that  assembled  matter 
and  created  the  material  universe.  In  other  words, 
that  spiritual  power,  resident  in  the  subjective  mind 
of  man,  which  is  known  to  science  as  "  telekinetic 
energy,"  enlarged  and  extended  to  infinity,  without 
changing  its  essential  nature,  becomes  omnipotence. 

The  next  faculty  on  the  list  is  that  of  telepathy, 
the  power  possessed  by  the  subjective  minds  of  men 
to  communicate  intelligence  from  one  to  another 
independently  of  the  ordinary  sensory  channels  of 
transmission. 

Science  has  demonstrated  the  existence  of  this 
faculty  in  certain  exceptionally  developed  persons 
known  to  scientists  as  "  psychics."  A  psychic  is  a 
person  who  has  developed  the  power  to  elevate  the 
operations  of  his  subjective  mind  above  the  threshold 
of  normal  consciousness.  They  are  called  by  as 
many  different  names  as  there  are  theories  of  causa- 
tion; "clairvoyants"  and  "spirit  mediums"  being 
among  the  most  common  designations.  It  is  often 
developed  spontaneously,  without  any  known  cause ; 
and  hypnotism  is  a  powerful  agency  through  which 
it  may  be  experimentally  demonstrated  to  exist.  It 
was  largely  by  this  agency  that  the  Society  for  Psy- 
chical Research  conducted  its  investigations,  although 
spontaneous  cases  are  much  in  evidence  in  their  re- 
ports. So-called  "  mediumship "  is,  however,  the 
most  prolific  source  of  telepathic  phenomena,  al- 
though it  is  not  recognized  as  such  by  the  mediums 
themselves.  A  good  "  medium "  is,  nevertheless, 
simply  a  good  telepathist;  and  it  is  to  this  power, 
exercised  unconsciously  and  dominated  by  the  law 


374        THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

of  suggestion,  that  is  due  all  that  is  mysterious  in 
the  so-called  "  communications  from  the  other  world." 
At  least  no  alleged  communication  has  ever  yet  been 
brought  to  light  that  cannot  be  thus  accounted  for. 
The  same  is  true  of  all  other  methods  of  divination 
where  the  past,  present,  or  future  of  an  individual  is 
accurately  stated,  without  previous  knowledge. 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  telepathy  is  a  very  im- 
portant faculty  of  the  human  mind ;  for  it  explains 
more  of  that  which  is  uncanny  and  mysterious  in 
psychic  phenomena  than  all  other  things  combined. 
This1_hojy.e_veiyis  the  limit  of  its  practicalnsefu  1  n  e  s  s 
jn_this  life ;  fpi..lhe_.jgason  that,  owing  to  the^on- 
sjajitlj^_jnodijj^mg_jnfluence  of_the_la_w__o_f_ suggestion, 
it  can  never  be  relied  upon  as  a  practic_al_means  of 
co  m  m  u  n  icatiqn . 

It  is  in  its  implications  that  its  importance  is  tran- 
scendent. The  most  important  may  be  enumerated 
as  follows :  — 

First,  it  gives  us  the  logical  right  to  believe  that, 
since  it  performs  no  normal  function  in  this  life,  it 
must  be  destined  to  a  normal  use  in  the  future  life. 
This  implication  is  reinforced  by  the  fact  (a)  that  it 
is  exactly  adapted  to  the  uses  of  disembodied  souls; 
(b)  that  it  is  not  adapted  to  incarnate  souls,  being 
only  manifested  under  abnormal  conditions;  and  (c) 
that  a  mental  faculty  without  a  normal  function  to 
per  for  m_j[£^^A<?£VL  is  inconceivable . * 

Secondly,  the  fact  that  this  or  any  other  faculty  is 
possessed  by  any  one  or  more  persons  is  demon- 
strative that  all  other  persons  possess  the  same  fac- 

1  For  a  full  discussion  of  this  subject,  see  "  A  Scientific  Demon- 
stration of  the  Future  Life." 


IN  THE  IMAGE   OF  GOD.  375 

ulty  to  a  greater  or  less  degree.  It  is  at  least  latent 
in  every  human  being. 

Thirdly,  it  follows  that  it  existed  potentially  in 
all  the  ancestry  of  man,  near  and  remote. 

We  must  therefore  conclude  that,  since  man  traces 
his  ancestry  back  to  the  divine  mind,  and  since 
man  was  made  in  the  image  of  God,  the  faculty  which 
we  are  considering  must  exist,  potentially  at  least,  in 
the  divine  mind. 

The  stupendous  consequences  which  this  con- 
elusion  involves  cannot  be  adequately  considered  in 
this  connection.  It  is  obvious,  however,  that  here  is 
the  means  by  which  man  may  reach  the  mind  of 
God  through  prayer.  Here  is  the  means  by  which 
God  may  reach  the  souls  of  men  who  choose  to  open 
the  line  of  communication  by  placing  themselves  in 
the  proper  mental  attitude.  Here  .is  the  agency  of 
divine  inspiration. 

Does  God  answer  the  prayers  of  his  children? 
Does  God  inspire  men  with  a  knowledge  of  his  laws 
and  a  desire  to  do  his  will?  These  are  great  ques- 
tions, which,  for  the  present,  each  one  must  answer 
for  himself,  guided  by  the  light  of  his  own  experi- 
ence. It  is  outside  the  province  of  this  volume  to 
discuss  them.  I  am  simply  trying  to  conduct  an 
inductive  inquiry  with  a  view  of  ascertaining  some- 
thing of  the  general  laws  pertaining  to  the  relation- 
ship which  man  sustains  to  his  Maker.  In  this  imme- 
diate connection  I  have  shown  that  a  law  exists 
through  which  the  divine  consciousness  may  be 
reached ;  and  it  follows  that  the  converse  may  also 
be  true.  In  other  words,  potentially  man  is  able  to 
commune  with  God,  and  God  with  man,  without 
violating  or  transcending  natural  law. 


376        THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

In  the  mean  time  there  is  another  fact  connected 
with  the  faculty  of  telepathy  which  is  of  more  imme- 
diate importance  than  any  we  have  considered ;  for 
in  a  sense  it  includes  all  the  others.  I  refer  to  the 
fact  that  jjstance  interposes  no  obstacle^ _tp_  the  exer- 
cise of  telepa^hic_gower.  That  is  to  say,  it  is  appar- 
ently just  as  easy  to  communicate  telepathically  with 
a  friend  at  the  antipodes  as  with  one  in  an  adjoining 
room.  The  records  of  the  London  Society  for  Psy- 
chical Research  show  that  some  of  the  most  remark- 
able cases  of  telepathic  communion  have  been 
between  persons  thus  widely  separated.  For  the 
purposes  of  telepathic  communion,  therefore,  space 
does  not  enter  as  an  adverse  factor.  To  all  intents 
and  purposes  the  agent  is  present  with  the  percip- 
ient, and  vice  versa. 

It  is  obvious  that  when  this  faculty  or  power  or 
energy  is  enlarged  and  extended  to  infinity,  it  be- 
comes the  divine  attribute  of  omnipresence. 

We  now  approach  the  question  that  is  of  more 
vital  importance  to  mankind  than  anything  else  per- 
taining to  the  relationship  existent  between  God  and 
his  children.  Thus  far  we  have  seen  that  the  fac- 
ulties of  the  subjective  mind  of  man,  enlarged  to 
infinity,  give  us  a  conception  of  an  omniscient,  omni- 
potent, omnipresent  deity.  But  those  attributes  alone 
do  not  satisfy  the  cravings  of  the  human  heart,  nor 
are  they  commensurate  with  the  unperverted  intuitions 
of  the  human  soul.  Neither  is  a  deity  who  has  only 
those  attributes  the  God  of  Christian  faith ;  for  that 
faith  is  founded  upon  the  inerrant  intuitions  of  the 
Man  of  Nazareth,  and  he  proclaimed  a  God  of  infinite 
love,  mercy,  and  benevolence.  If  therefore  his  per- 


IN  THE  IMAGE  OF  GOD.  377 

ceptions  of  divine  truth  were  inerrant,  and  if  the 
prophet  of  old  failed  not  in  his  apprehension  of  ulti- 
mate verity  when  he  declared  that  man  was  made  in 
the  image  of  God,  we  may  confidently  expect  to  find 
the  soul  of  man  to  be  correspondingly  endowed. 
Accordingly  we  find  that  the  natural  emotions  are 
located  in  the  subjective  mind. 

Little  further  need  be  said  on  this  branch  of  the 
subject  beyond  reminding  the  reader  of  what  I 
pointed  out  in  the  earlier  chapters  of  this  book.  It 
will  be  recalled  that  I  showed  that  the  so-called 
"  animal  passions,"  in  their  ultimate  development, 
regulation,  and  purification,  are  all  essentially  altru- 
istic. Beginning  with  the  primordial  instinct  of 
reproduction,  which  in  its  ultimate  analysis  is  the 
parental  instinct,  and  tracing  the  history  of  the  emo- 
tions up  to  their  final  development  in  the  higher 
civilization,  we  find  a  constant  tendency  toward  the 
higher  altruism.  Classifying  the  emotions  into  the 
"self-regarding"  and  the  "other-regarding,"  we 
found  that  they  all  belong  to  the  latter  class  except 
the  one  instinct  of  self-preservation;  and  that,  as 
nations  and  peoples  progress  toward  the  higher 
civilization,  the  altruistic  instincts  and  emotions 
assume  the  ascendancy.  It  necessarily  follows  that, 
if  the  analysis  is  correct,  the  ultimate  goal  of  human 
progress  is  universal  altruism. 

That  it  is  correct  is  abundantly  evidenced  by  the 
history  of  human  progressional  development  since 
man  emerged  from  primitive  savagery.  Moreover, 
the  present  analysis  shows  that  it  is  necessarily  true, 
since  man  was  made  in  the  image  of  God. 

It  will  now  be  seen  that  the  chain  of  evidence  to 


378         THE  DIVINE  PEDIGREE   OF  MAN. 

prove  our  thesis  is  complete ;  for  it  is  obvious  that 
an  extension  of  the  natural  emotions  of  man  to  in- 
finity could  amount  to  neither  more  nor  less  than 
infinite  and  universal  love. 

^  To  sum  up  in  a  few  words,  we  find  in  the  subjec- 
tive faculties  of  man,  without  a  change  in  their 

(  essential  nature,  the  embryotic  representatives  of  all 
that  the  finite  mind  can  conceive  of  the  essential 
attributes  of  God, —  the  God  of  Christian  faith. 

\  Thus:  — 

1.  In  the  intellectual   faculties    (intuition,   deduc- 
tion, and  memory),  potential  omniscience. 

2.  In  its  dynamic    energy  (telekinesis),  potential 
omnipotence. 

3.  In  the    power  of  mental  communion   (telepa- 
thy), potential  omnipresence. 

4.  In   the    natural    emotions,   potential    universal 
altruism,  — infinite  love. 

I  submit  that  there  can  be  no  higher  conception 
of  divine  knowledge  —  nay,  that  there  can  exist  no 
higher  wisdom,  than  that  which  is  indicated  in  the 
word  "  omniscience ;  "  that  there  can  exist  no  greater 
power  than  is  described  in  the  word  "  omnipotence ;  " 
that  there  can  be  no  broader  conception  of  the  all- 
pervasiveness  of  that  wisdom  and  that  power  than  is 
implied  in  the  word  "  omnipresence;  "  and,  finally, 
that  the  human  mind  can  conceive  of  no  quality  or 
attribute  of  the  divine  personality  of  greater  promise 
and  potency  than  that  implied  in  the  words  "  infinite 
and  universal  love." 

Moreover,  I  submit  that  this  is  a  conception  of 
immanence  without  pantheism  and  personality  with- 
out anthropomorphism.  It  does  not  presume  either 


IN  THE  IMAGE   OF  GOD.  379 

to  "  limit"  or  "  measure  "  the  powers  and  attributes 
of  God  by  setting  up  those  of  man  as  a  standard  of 
measurement.       On   the    contrary,    it   simply   shows  > 
that  an  analysis  of  the  known  powers  of  the  human  . 
soul  proves  that  the  powers  of  God  are  illimitable, 
and  hence  immeasurable  by  finite  minds.     In  other 
words,  it  is  not  that  we  can  measure  the  powers  of  \ 
the  divine  mind  or  set  up  a  standard  of  its  limita- 
tions,   but   that    we    may    know    something   of   its 
essential  qualities  by  an  analysis  of  its  emanations ; 
just  as  we  may,  by  spectrum  analysis,  know  some- 
thing of  the  qualities  of  light  without  presuming  to  I 
reveal  the  extent  or  potency  of  solar  influence. 

This  is  all  that  man  can  know  of  God  by  a  direct  | 
analysis  of  his  own  powers.     But  it  is   something. 
It  is,  indeed,  much;  for  it  is  all  that  man  needs  to  | 
know  concerning  the  character  and  attributes  of  the 
Great   First  Cause.     Its  value  lies   not   more    in    its  • 
revelation  of  God  to  man  than  in  its  revelation  of 
man    to   himself.     It  is    not   that   it  reveals   human 
attributes  in  God,  but  that  it  discloses  divine  attri- 
butes in  man,  defines  his  place  in  nature,  and  reveals 
the  character  of  his  obligations  to  the  Author  of  his 
being. 


THE  END. 


A     000  064  504     4 


